Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: ra on May 12, 2006, 05:47:34 PM

Title: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: ra on May 12, 2006, 05:47:34 PM
In alphabetic order:

Capital
Cooley
Florida Coastal
Golden Gate
John Marshall (Atlanta)
John Marshall (Chicago)
New England
Northern Kentucky - Chase
Nova SE
Regent
Roger Williams
Southern
St. Thomas (Miami)
Thomas Jefferson
Thurgud Marshall
Whittier
Widener
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Silvermtn on May 12, 2006, 07:45:13 PM
Any perticular reason why?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ihatehippies on May 12, 2006, 08:18:38 PM
You forgot Boalt, unless you are gay avoid it at all costs despite its high rank.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Silvermtn on May 12, 2006, 09:47:34 PM
How does Western State, Appalachain, Barry, Florida A&M, Florida International, and District of Columbia avoid such damnation?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: shaz on May 12, 2006, 11:45:10 PM
i might have gone to either widener-(de) or john marshall-(chi) w/ a full ride. 
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: FellowCane on May 13, 2006, 12:14:17 AM
Why Nova and St. Thomas? Is it because of the tuition? ???
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: lipper on May 13, 2006, 08:12:21 AM
and New England does pretty well in, well New England.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: racheles05 on May 13, 2006, 09:31:37 AM
I have a friend who attends Nova. She has a great scholarship, a paying job this summer and plenty of career opportunities. Her husband works in the area, so it was convenient.

These lists are all pretty stupid. People have different reasons for attending school, and it's all pretty subjective.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: CoxlessPair on May 13, 2006, 12:04:20 PM
It looks like you just picked some random T4s.

You are a turd and this is mere flame biat.

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: oneonone on May 13, 2006, 03:42:29 PM
You forgot Boalt, unless you are gay avoid it at all costs despite its high rank.

You hate gay people, Ihate?! Strange, most of us here do not!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: happymothers on May 13, 2006, 05:54:04 PM
and New England does pretty well in, well New England.

NESL has a 30% 1st-year attrition rate ... is this the kind of school one would want to go to?!

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: brewha on May 13, 2006, 11:41:58 PM
you fogot to add Yale
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: cindys on May 14, 2006, 05:10:25 AM
Why Nova and St. Thomas? Is it because of the tuition? ???

Why not?! A lousy law school (read a 4th tier one) should never ever be allowed to charhe more than, say, $15,000 a year in tuition. After all, they're not real law school and should take into account that their graduates may or may not find employment as attorneys.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: latasha on May 14, 2006, 07:53:17 AM
Why Nova and St. Thomas? Is it because of the tuition? ???

Why not?! A lousy law school (read a 4th tier one) should never ever be allowed to charhe more than, say, $15,000 a year in tuition. After all, they're not real law school and should take into account that their graduates may or may not find employment as attorneys.

Write to this ass,

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/section/consultant/consultant.html
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on May 14, 2006, 09:36:36 PM
I'm goign to be going to one of these avoid at all cost law schools and i'm happy with it, and i think i'll be completly fine and have no problem finding a job.  As for attrition rates, one thing to consider, a student transfering to a higher teir school will also drive the attrition rate. I would love to know the methodology behind that list by the way.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: brewha on May 14, 2006, 10:15:40 PM
I'm goign  to be going to one of these avoid at all cost law schools and i'm happy with it, and i think i'll be completly  fine and have no problem finding a job.  As for attrition rates, one thing to consider, a student transfering  to a higher teir  school will also drive the attrition rate. I would love to know the methodology behind that list by the way.


You didn't really need to let us know that you would be attending one of the worst schools in the nation... it's rather obvious that would be the case.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: shaz on May 14, 2006, 11:52:36 PM
that was wrong.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on May 15, 2006, 07:40:50 AM
thanks for the spell check brewha, next time i'll make sure that I profread my posts onto a forum that exists so people can look down on other people besed soley on the reputation of their school.  what school do you go mr spell check?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: brewha on May 15, 2006, 07:49:48 AM
thanks for the spell check brewha, next time i'll make sure that I profread my posts onto a forum that exists so people can look down on other people besed soley on the reputation of their school.  what school do you go mr spell check?




Mr. Spell Check... I haven't been called that since before the war. 
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on May 15, 2006, 07:53:01 AM
so you're avoiding the question?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: sirenn on May 15, 2006, 09:21:09 PM
Why Nova and St. Thomas? Is it because of the tuition? ???

Why not?! A lousy law school (read a 4th tier one) should never ever be allowed to charhe more than, say, $15,000 a year in tuition. After all, they're not real law school and should take into account that their graduates may or may not find employment as attorneys.

Write to this ass,

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/section/consultant/consultant.html

Don't get all riled up when suggesting anything to this ass! He gets kickbacks from the enumerated law schools on this thread!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ihatehippies on May 16, 2006, 10:27:16 AM
I never said I hated gays, I just think they are like the children’s book if you give a mouse a cookie.  I am totally for civil unions, let them have equal rights but against gay marriage.  Equal rights is fine with me, but not marriage.  You claim I am in the minority, yet last election how many constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed, all of them! I hate boalt tho, they are radical extremists.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Dxion on May 16, 2006, 12:43:13 PM
I hate gays.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: LALaw04 on May 16, 2006, 11:29:06 PM
Hey look, there's a law school out there for everyone!  Let the free market sort out the good lawyers from the bad after law school is done.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Joey_JD2b on May 17, 2006, 11:16:02 AM
I hate gays.


We hate you too.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: catamount27 on May 17, 2006, 12:56:58 PM
"equal rights but against gay marriage" sounds like 'separate but equal.' are you in favor of separate water fountains and rest rooms? i believe civil rights activists in the 1960s and abolitionists pre-civil war were considered "radical extremists" as well. obviously the us constitution shows a different historical opinion.

I never said I hated gays, I just think they are like the children’s book if you give a mouse a cookie.  I am totally for civil unions, let them have equal rights but against gay marriage.  Equal rights is fine with me, but not marriage.  You claim I am in the minority, yet last election how many constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed, all of them! I hate boalt tho, they are radical extremists.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: trinity2782 on May 17, 2006, 01:10:09 PM
   12 reasons why gay people shouldnt be allowed to get married

   1.  Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
   2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
   3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
   4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
   5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
   6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
   7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
   8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
   9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
  10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
  11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
  12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: catamount27 on May 17, 2006, 01:44:52 PM
I've heard that homosexuality is a gateway lifestyle. Therefore, the legalization of gay marriage might lead to the eventual legalization of bestiality or cannibalism.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Dxion on May 17, 2006, 01:52:05 PM
I support Gay Marriage for no reason other than that it would result in Gay Divorce. There would be nothing funnier than watching a couple of homos duke in out in court over a fondue set.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: trinity2782 on May 17, 2006, 02:48:49 PM
I support Gay Marriage for no reason other than that it would result in Gay Divorce. There would be nothing funnier than watching a couple of homos duke in out in court over a fondue set.

Wow how did you know all "homos" own a fondue set!?1 You are quite informed! As a "homo" i am quite impressed by your knowledge of gay people! Do you think all lesbians own SUVs? And you are right nothing would be funnier then to watch "homos" duke it out over a fondue set...honestly it would be the funniest thing EVER, funnier then that lesbian comic...hmmm whats her name, wait you tell me, you are the one who knows all about gay people.



god i hope i dont go to the same law school as you.

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Joey_JD2b on May 17, 2006, 02:56:56 PM
   12 reasons why gay people shouldnt be allowed to get married

   1.  Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, ...


 :D

Yes!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: WaxPoetic on May 17, 2006, 03:41:23 PM
I'd add Touro (b/c of the bar pass rates and employment percentages), but remove Widener, which I'm told has a good reputation in Harrisburg.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: goldenchain on May 17, 2006, 09:25:40 PM
In alphabetic order:

Capital - $25,000
Cooley - $23,000
Florida Coastal - $25,000
Golden Gate - $30,000
John Marshall (Atlanta) - $24,000
John Marshall (Chicago) - $30,000
New England - $25,000
Northern Kentucky - Chase - $22,000
Nova SE - $26,000
Regent - $24,000
Roger Williams - $27,000
Southern - $11,000 :: DOES IT REALLY HAVE TO BE LISTED HERE, THEN?!
St. Thomas (Miami) - $26,000
Thomas Jefferson - $29,000
Thurgud Marshall - $14,000 :: THIS ONE TOO!
Whittier - $30,000
Widener - $29,000
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: catamount27 on May 18, 2006, 08:35:31 AM
fondue sets are so 2004-retro.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kmpnj on May 18, 2006, 09:06:45 AM
I find it interesting that Widener is on this list.  For the Feb. 2005 PA Bar Exam, Widener had the highest passage rate.  Higher than Penn, Temple, Villanova, etc.  The guy who compiled this list probably lost his girlfriend to a T4 student and feels the need to compensate.  Sad, really.

As a side note, no spelling errors to distract from the real issue of your obvious inferiority complex.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: reverendlex on May 18, 2006, 12:08:35 PM
Measuring law schools by the first year outcomes of their students is like those JD Power reliability surveys. They call car owners 90 days after purchase to see how reliable their cars are.

However, looking at the Feb bar pass rates is also a bit silly. People taking the Feb bar are more than likely (yes, there are some exceptions) retaking the exam. I wouldn't give much weight to 'we have a higher pass rate the second time around).

But putting any worth in law school rankings is like painting your car in your favorite team's colors. If the most valuable aspect of your life is wrapped up in the school you went to, instead of your individual achievements, you haven't done much...
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Silvermtn on May 18, 2006, 12:15:48 PM


But putting any worth in law school rankings is like painting your car in your favorite team's colors. If the most valuable aspect of your life is wrapped up in the school you went to, instead of your individual achievements, you haven't done much...

Well said!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: 4DClaw on May 18, 2006, 12:40:26 PM
Depressing...

In alphabetic order:

Capital - $25,000
Cooley - $23,000
Florida Coastal - $25,000
Golden Gate - $30,000
John Marshall (Atlanta) - $24,000
John Marshall (Chicago) - $30,000
New England - $25,000
Northern Kentucky - Chase - $22,000
Nova SE - $26,000
Regent - $24,000
Roger Williams - $27,000
Southern - $11,000 :: DOES IT REALLY HAVE TO BE LISTED HERE, THEN?!
St. Thomas (Miami) - $26,000
Thomas Jefferson - $29,000
Thurgud Marshall - $14,000 :: THIS ONE TOO!
Whittier - $30,000
Widener - $29,000

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kmpnj on May 18, 2006, 01:57:30 PM


But putting any worth in law school rankings is like painting your car in your favorite team's colors. If the most valuable aspect of your life is wrapped up in the school you went to, instead of your individual achievements, you haven't done much...

Well said!

Agreed.  I've always been curious as to why some feel the need to denegrate the law school choices that some people make.  There are a variety of reasons why people choose the schools they choose.  The bottom line is, as long as your school is ABA approved, then anyone who graduates ought to be fine.  Do graduates of higher name schools have an advantage when it comes to first jobs out of law school?  Probably.  However, I would speculate that, after your first job, the advantage evens out over time.  After all, why would a law firm hire someone with a garbage reputation, who graduated from a T14 over a T4 graduate who regularly wins in court?  Its like a football team taking Ki-Jana Carter over Walter Payton, just because Ki-Jana Carter went to Penn State and Walter Payton went to Jackson State.  The bottom line is, as long as the student is happy with their choice of law school and they do reasonably well at that school, then thats really all that matters.  Ripping the T4 schools is really pointless and pathetic.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: passionatelawyer on May 21, 2006, 12:41:28 AM
I just love goldenchain's obsession with other schools.  He should worry about his other deficiencies.  I don't speak of which school I was from, I speak from experience.  Goldenchain is some young punk who has his parents pay for everything.  I saw this thread and thought it was ridiculoous.  The people who go on this site are the people who get good grades on their LSAT.  Frankly, that means *&^% in the real world.  I don't care if you come from a tier 4 or tier 1.  Education is only a second factor in what I hire for.  I am currently enrolled in a tier 4 school for all who are listening, but that is of choice.  I am 26, have owned my own business for five years and make more than any attorney would make even from Yale.  I write because it pisses me off that a person would downplay education the way they do.  I took the school I did for convenience but to say that my classmates are incompetent is an insult.  I will stand by every person, past or present, who attended a tier 4 school, and state that everthing the losers put on this site have nothing to do with the real world.  Most people on this site do not know what life is!  I didn't spend last summer studying for the LSAT, I spent it making my business. 
     I should note that I am not a prodigy or brilliant man.  I am from the Midwest and value hard work.  Everything I have I earned.  I know that's hard to believe for the East Cosat people who think they own the country because they got one good grade on the LSAT or think life ownes them something.
     On another subject, this site should be about support for law school, not dejecting those who wish to follow where we have gone.  We should support our profession, it is the very people we anticipate making deals with when we graduate.  "Our enemies today may be our neighbors tomorrow."  I hope I offended some and gave hope to others.


       
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: miller on May 21, 2006, 02:04:57 AM
I support Gay Marriage for no reason other than that it would result in Gay Divorce. There would be nothing funnier than watching a couple of homos duke in out in court over a fondue set.
I don't support gay marriages: frankly, we, future lawyers, will have more clients if gay marriages will not be legal.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: sasha9 on May 22, 2006, 08:07:02 AM
I consistently test in the 95th percentile on the IQ test, but that only translated into me landing in the top 95th percentile of a 4th tier law school (did you see what I did there? That was a joke). So, there's gotta be something else going on with me...

Anyway, what I really feel is anger toward myself (I'll get to that) but especially toward the school. After being shown the door I had nothing but time to do a bit of research and came to realize that my fourth-tier law school had a bit of a ponsi scheme going on .. What I suspect is that lower tier schools accept people who don't necessarily demonstrate true aptitude for legal study, nor passage of the bar, in the interest of generating revenue. That revenue is then used toward rank-improving initiatives, such as a new coat of paint, the odd computer, rat-traps or a halfway decent booze-cruise.

These lower tier schools actually set their curves lower than the upper tiers meaning that while a 2.5 may be a C+ at Michigan, a 2.5 is a D+ at Lionel Hutz School of Law. Since Law School is a sum-zero game it is inevitable that, say, 10-20% of the 1L's at a fourth tier school will fall below a certain line and receive a waive good-bye from the dean while he lights a cigar with your money. See, once they have your money they are then concerned with your ability to pass the bar, which is also used in assessing the school's ranking. An academic review committee gets together and makes a simple, cold business decision as to whether or not you are worth their kid's braces. From all I've read and heard, the practice is nowhere near as common in the upper tiers. Once you're there, you're there.

I can't @ # ! * i n g believe I didn't figure this out before it was too late because I've always had an aptitude for that sort of reasoning (I'm applying to business school now, by the way). Everyone told me to not even bother applying if I got below a 160 on the LSAT, and moreover not to let that particular 4th tier law school fleece me the way they did. But of course, every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason. What an arrogant little SOB I was.

I'm also angry at myself because, at 28 I've just learned that I'm ADD and Dyslexic. Had I taken the odd pill here or there half of my problems would likely have been ameliorated. The other half of my problems is caused by the fact that I'm a tremendous a-hole, but Merk has yet to develop medication for that ...
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on May 22, 2006, 08:37:42 AM
you can't be angry at the school because you couldn't handle the work. you should have worked harder.  if you're as intelligent as you say, then you simply did not put forth enough effort while in law school.  you need to get rid of your blame someone/something else for my problems mentality.  Also how did you learn you had dyslexia and add at age 28 when you were in formal educational insitution, you didn't just develop these disorders why haven't you caught them earlier?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: futurelawyer859 on May 22, 2006, 08:41:57 AM
I am going to Northern Kentucky-Chase...and you did not note..it is a public school so while it may be 22000 for out of state students..it is only 11000 for Kentucky residents.  Also, I am going for much less than that.  They do offer fairly decent scholarships to students who fall above their median.
Thanks:)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: n.artist on May 22, 2006, 11:22:53 PM
tag
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: may on May 22, 2006, 11:57:03 PM
Quote
The guy who compiled this list probably lost his girlfriend to a T4 student [...]

Do T4 students actually date?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on May 23, 2006, 07:48:17 AM
no t4 students are unlike normal people in all walks of life, that's why they couldn't get into a top 100 school.  they don't date, drink or do anything enjoyable, they just sit around all day and commiserate about how they did bad on the lsat
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: 4DClaw on May 23, 2006, 07:54:04 AM
They can communicate?

no t4 students are unlike normal people in all walks of life, that's why they couldn't get into a top 100 school.  they don't date, drink or do anything enjoyable, they just sit around all day and commiserate about how they bad on the lsat
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on May 23, 2006, 09:18:40 AM
it's primitive, i mean you can't expect them to use compound tenses or abstract reasoning, but in terms of simple concrete subject - predicate - object sentances they have about the same ability as a gorilla that knows sign language
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: 4DClaw on May 23, 2006, 09:23:58 AM
So that's where law professors come from...
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: caffedelmar on May 26, 2006, 05:56:13 PM
Very useful thread!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jjason on May 26, 2006, 09:41:31 PM
C'mon! I mean, I expected this on the Pre-Law board... but on the Student/Grad board? Ridiculous. This is why I hate people. ha
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on May 27, 2006, 12:20:44 AM
jjason, you take yourself a little too seriously calm down it's the summmer time
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: cuteprincess on May 29, 2006, 10:19:43 AM
People who go to T4 school go there because they can't afford the tuition of the higher ranking school.  It's not because they are stupid.  Maybe they go there knowing they will open their own practice.  Whatever the reason, I'm proud of them just for going to law school.  Law school is damn hard and I don't think you should be getting down on different ranking law schools.  People have their reasons.  I have realized that t4 school are mostly for working adults.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: GC on May 29, 2006, 04:11:44 PM
People who go to T4 school go there because they can't afford the tuition of the higher ranking school.

Did ya take a look at this list?

In alphabetic order:

Capital - $25,000
Cooley - $23,000
Florida Coastal - $25,000
Golden Gate - $30,000
John Marshall (Atlanta) - $24,000
John Marshall (Chicago) - $30,000
New England - $25,000
Northern Kentucky - Chase - $22,000
Nova SE - $26,000
Regent - $24,000
Roger Williams - $27,000
Southern - $11,000 :: DOES IT REALLY HAVE TO BE LISTED HERE, THEN?!
St. Thomas (Miami) - $26,000
Thomas Jefferson - $29,000
Thurgud Marshall - $14,000 :: THIS ONE TOO!
Whittier - $30,000
Widener - $29,000

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: penn on May 29, 2006, 06:27:52 PM
Quote
The guy who compiled this list probably lost his girlfriend to a T4 student [...]

Do T4 students actually date?

I realize that this is sarcasm, but I wanted to say that it's not strange for law students not to date at all during their law school studies. Especially T4 students that are under an enermous amount of pressure in the cutthroat environments of their schools.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: sasha3 on May 29, 2006, 06:50:57 PM
I consistently test in the 95th percentile on the IQ test, but that only translated into me landing in the top 95th percentile of a 4th tier law school (did you see what I did there? That was a joke). So, there's gotta be something else going on with me...

Anyway, what I really feel is anger toward myself (I'll get to that) but especially toward the school. After being shown the door I had nothing but time to do a bit of research and came to realize that my fourth-tier law school had a bit of a ponsi scheme going on .. What I suspect is that lower tier schools accept people who don't necessarily demonstrate true aptitude for legal study, nor passage of the bar, in the interest of generating revenue. That revenue is then used toward rank-improving initiatives, such as a new coat of paint, the odd computer, rat-traps or a halfway decent booze-cruise.


These lower tier schools actually set their curves lower than the upper tiers meaning that while a 2.5 may be a C+ at Michigan, a 2.5 is a D+ at Lionel Hutz School of Law. Since Law School is a sum-zero game it is inevitable that, say, 10-20% of the 1L's at a fourth tier school will fall below a certain line and receive a waive good-bye from the dean while he lights a cigar with your money. See, once they have your money they are then concerned with your ability to pass the bar, which is also used in assessing the school's ranking. An academic review committee gets together and makes a simple, cold business decision as to whether or not you are worth their kid's braces. From all I've read and heard, the practice is nowhere near as common in the upper tiers. Once you're there, you're there.

I can't @ # ! * i n g believe I didn't figure this out before it was too late because I've always had an aptitude for that sort of reasoning (I'm applying to business school now, by the way). Everyone told me to not even bother applying if I got below a 160 on the LSAT, and moreover not to let that particular 4th tier law school fleece me the way they did. But of course, every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason. What an arrogant little SOB I was.

I'm also angry at myself because, at 28 I've just learned that I'm ADD and Dyslexic. Had I taken the odd pill here or there half of my problems would likely have been ameliorated. The other half of my problems is caused by the fact that I'm a tremendous not so nice person, but Merk has yet to develop medication for that ...


I have a strong feeling that you are referring to Roger Williams Law School.  If I am correct, then you hit the nail on the head.  Roger Williams is nothing but a ponsi scheme.  Most of the bar in this state know it also.  That is why they want nothing to do with us.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kmpnj on May 29, 2006, 10:45:20 PM
I consistently test in the 95th percentile on the IQ test, but that only translated into me landing in the top 95th percentile of a 4th tier law school (did you see what I did there? That was a joke). So, there's gotta be something else going on with me...

Anyway, what I really feel is anger toward myself (I'll get to that) but especially toward the school. After being shown the door I had nothing but time to do a bit of research and came to realize that my fourth-tier law school had a bit of a ponsi scheme going on .. What I suspect is that lower tier schools accept people who don't necessarily demonstrate true aptitude for legal study, nor passage of the bar, in the interest of generating revenue. That revenue is then used toward rank-improving initiatives, such as a new coat of paint, the odd computer, rat-traps or a halfway decent booze-cruise.


These lower tier schools actually set their curves lower than the upper tiers meaning that while a 2.5 may be a C+ at Michigan, a 2.5 is a D+ at Lionel Hutz School of Law. Since Law School is a sum-zero game it is inevitable that, say, 10-20% of the 1L's at a fourth tier school will fall below a certain line and receive a waive good-bye from the dean while he lights a cigar with your money. See, once they have your money they are then concerned with your ability to pass the bar, which is also used in assessing the school's ranking. An academic review committee gets together and makes a simple, cold business decision as to whether or not you are worth their kid's braces. From all I've read and heard, the practice is nowhere near as common in the upper tiers. Once you're there, you're there.

I can't @ # ! * i n g believe I didn't figure this out before it was too late because I've always had an aptitude for that sort of reasoning (I'm applying to business school now, by the way). Everyone told me to not even bother applying if I got below a 160 on the LSAT, and moreover not to let that particular 4th tier law school fleece me the way they did. But of course, every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason. What an arrogant little SOB I was.

I'm also angry at myself because, at 28 I've just learned that I'm ADD and Dyslexic. Had I taken the odd pill here or there half of my problems would likely have been ameliorated. The other half of my problems is caused by the fact that I'm a tremendous not so nice person, but Merk has yet to develop medication for that ...


I have a strong feeling that you are referring to Roger Williams Law School.  If I am correct, then you hit the nail on the head.  Roger Williams is nothing but a ponsi scheme.  Most of the bar in this state know it also.  That is why they want nothing to do with us.


Funny, my pre-law advisor pushes this fraud school on everyone who takes the LSAT.  I still must dispute Widener being on this list.  Every single lawyer I talk to (and I talk to many in the course of my current job) has nothing but posititve things to say about the school (Delaware campus, anyway) and the lawyers they produce.  Anyone can find the odd school and use it as the example, but it is an isolated case.  I realize that you feel you got jobbed, but an IQ test in no way measures your work ethic, research or writing skills.  Interestingly, the last two skills are not measured on the LSAT either. 

In my own case, I didn't decide to take the LSAT until last September.  I took it with no prep and got a 152.  Not great, but with no prep I'll take it.  Anyway, I decided I'd rather spend the rest of the semester concentrating on getting through my 5 class course load instead of taking a prep course to achieve a higher LSAT score.  As a result the only neighborhood school I got into was Widener and I'm ok with that.  Bottom line is people score what they score for a variety of reasons.  That being said, it seems to me that succeeding in law school is not as much a talent or gift as much as it is a skill that CAN be learned.  Therefore, to say that someone can't learn how to succeed in law school because of a result they achieved on a test that doesn't even measure key components of the requisite work of law school is, in a word, stupid.  While I can certainly appreciate the need of some to inflate their own egos by attempting to damage the confidence of those who attend lower ranked law schools, that doesn't necessitate my agreeing with this infantile pablum.  It is akin to someone who drives a corvette telling someone that drives a corrolla that if they can't drive a more luxurious car, they may as well not even attempt to rise above their station and drive and should, instead, deal with their relegation to a lifetime of riding public transportation.  So, my advice to the above is to either try again or stop crying and find something else to do with your time.  Your cloak of self-pity is flat out depressing and sad.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: bikinilaw on May 30, 2006, 06:23:19 AM
Why Nova and St. Thomas? Is it because of the tuition? ???

Why not?! A lousy law school (read a 4th tier one) should never ever be allowed to charhe more than, say, $15,000 a year in tuition. After all, they're not real law school and should take into account that their graduates may or may not find employment as attorneys.

Write to this ass,

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/section/consultant/consultant.html

Dean Sebert served as Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law from 1993 to 2000. During his tenure as dean he led the school in a substantial curriculum revision and in identifying and then making significant progress on a number of major strategic objectives for the school. Dean Sebert’s fundraising efforts also resulted in more than doubling the school’s endowment and securing a number of significant additional pledges to the endowment.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: aca on May 30, 2006, 06:25:42 AM

Dean Sebert served as Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law from 1993 to 2000. During his tenure as dean he led the school in a substantial curriculum revision and in identifying and then making significant progress on a number of major strategic objectives for the school. Dean Sebert’s fundraising efforts also resulted in more than doubling the school's endowment and securing a number of significant additional pledges to the endowment.


Are you plagerizing?

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/section/consultant/consultantsebertbio.html

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: legaldetriment on May 31, 2006, 09:46:48 AM
To the Tier 1-3 students who are so insecure about themselves as to come onto a board and attempt to belittle what others have worked hard to achieve: Enjoy loneliness.  You will not be successful with that attitude, I assure you.  Your personality wins over people, NOT your LSAT, GPA, class rank, etc.  These mean absolutely zero in the end.  What matters is your passion, passing of the Bar, and treatment of others (clients, employees alike).  Its sad to see so many that have the opportunity to go these great institutions waste it with their attitude and lack or respect for their future fellow attorney.  Some of you are in school to defend invalids and people who did not have the learning capacity to even attend college, and here you are lashing out at someone for sitting at a tier 4 law school.  I wish that these few would consider themselves privileged rather than immortal.  I also recommend changing your attitude, otherwise you may find yourself the one working for that tier 4 grad that so graciously appreciated his/her opportunities. 
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: trinity2782 on May 31, 2006, 11:38:48 AM
I gotta agree with detriment. I dont understand how anybody who has not worked in the legal field as an attorney can call any school a TTT. Are tier one schools better then tier four? I suppose so, but are the students at a tier one better then the students at a tier four? I dont know...I havent met all the students in all the tiers, so I am not qualified to make that statement and most of the people on this board arent as well. If a student at Yale wants to think they are better then me, then go ahead, you might be ... but i am more then likely more attractive then they are and really isnt that what matters the most? HA 
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: buttlaw on May 31, 2006, 07:20:05 PM
Quote
If a student at Yale wants to think they are better then me, then go ahead, you might be ... but i am more then likely more attractive then they are and really isn't that what matters the most?

No, it's not, at least not in law school ..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: DCrell on June 01, 2006, 05:51:34 AM
I think that person was joking. ANyway, avoid Harvard at all costs. It is about to slipp into the third tier. Be aware.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: trinity2782 on June 01, 2006, 06:24:12 AM
I think that person was joking.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on June 01, 2006, 09:25:06 AM
I hear good things about Widener as well, and I know a faculty member of the university who has told me that the law school does not greatly concern itself with the ranking and would rather extend opprotunities to students it feels has shown promise yet may not have proformed as well on the lsat to get into temple, rutgers, nova etc than to exclude them from law school.  I know about a dozen good prosecutors and defense attorneys (major trial da's and top dollar private attorneys) who went to widener and they are some of the most well respected lawyers in the philadelphia court system. 
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: wardwilliams on June 01, 2006, 09:47:05 AM
tag
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: ante on June 07, 2006, 11:06:33 AM
Don't go to T4s, I mean to any T4, not just the ones listed here! Don't be stupid!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on June 07, 2006, 11:48:10 AM
Don't go to T4s, I mean to any T4, not just the ones listed here! Don't be stupid!

so you've graduated law school, or have gone to a T4, or have some knowledge of t4 that you didn't garner off ego intesifying board.  Interesting point, I really enjoy the fact that you set an argument then use clear examples and ratonale to defend said argue\ment.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kmpnj on June 07, 2006, 12:33:02 PM
Don't go to T4s, I mean to any T4, not just the ones listed here! Don't be stupid!

so you've graduated law school, or have gone to a T4, or have some knowledge of t4 that you didn't garner off ego intesifying board.  Interesting point, I really enjoy the fact that you set an argument then use clear examples and ratonale to defend said argue\ment.

Because of his non T4 status, he obviously feels that he is not bound by the traditional rules of argument.  Making a statement then supporting it with facts, statistics, hell even anecdotal evidence.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Sexual Harassment Panda on June 07, 2006, 08:03:42 PM
I don't know what this dumbass' problem is, but I know people who attended non-ABA accredited law schools in AL and CA who are making six figures.  That arbitrary list can't hide your insecurity.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: tenth8sphere on June 07, 2006, 08:13:20 PM
Different schools offer different opportunities. There are success stories from all of them, and as other posters have said, money isn't everyone's goal in life. I think everyone ought to be congratulated and wished luck in the law school process, whether you're at Yale on a full ride, or barely scraped Cooley - both are going to be tough, and worthwhile.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ashe on June 08, 2006, 08:47:06 PM

I don't know what this dumbass' problem is, but I know people who attended non-ABA accredited law schools in AL and CA who are making six figures. 


yea right ..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: bobbykurva on June 09, 2006, 11:08:38 AM

I don't know what this dumbass' problem is, but I know people who attended non-ABA accredited law schools in AL and CA who are making six figures. 


yea right ..


Why do people make it seem like it's impossible to make 6 figures from a lower ranked school. Hell - my dad came to this country at 22 years of age with only the clothes on his back. He has had no formal american education, still has a hard time with the english language, and pulls down 6 figres per year. How is that still unreasnoable this day and age? You people must have some lazy ass family if you think it's that hard to make 6 figures if that's your goal, especially with a trade such as law under your belt. It's there for the taking, and you can get it no matter if you finish Harvard or Cooley. Take your insecurities elsewhere.

And to curb all the rants that will follow -- Yes, I'm going to a TTTT, and Yes, it's ok with me, because it fits nicely into my long term goals.

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: cerealkiller on June 09, 2006, 01:28:57 PM

I don't know what this dumbass' problem is, but I know people who attended non-ABA accredited law schools in AL and CA who are making six figures. 


yea right ..


Why do people make it seem like it's impossible to make 6 figures from a lower ranked school. Hell - my dad came to this country at 22 years of age with only the clothes on his back. He has had no formal american education, still has a hard time with the english language, and pulls down 6 figres per year. How is that still unreasnoable this day and age? You people must have some lazy ass family if you think it's that hard to make 6 figures if that's your goal, especially with a trade such as law under your belt. It's there for the taking, and you can get it no matter if you finish Harvard or Cooley. Take your insecurities elsewhere.

And to curb all the rants that will follow -- Yes, I'm going to a TTTT, and Yes, it's ok with me, because it fits nicely into my long term goals.



Amen. I too am attending a T4 school in the fall, California Western School of Law. If anyone has a problem with that, that's just it, it's their problem not mine. The people who are attending T1 and T2 should be grateful that they got accepted to such schools. I mean, really, get over yourselves. I don't want to belabor the point alreadly made by others, but simply attending a T1 school does not irrevocably guarantee long-term financial or professional (however you may define either 'term')success. During your law school career you may discover that, despite the fact that you performed well in your undergraduate years and/or on the LSAT, you simply are mediocre when it comes to legal analysis. Obviously, this may not be the outcome in every case. Regardless, do us all a favor and save your self-glorifying blather for when you've actually accomplished something significant in the legal community.       
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kitkat on June 09, 2006, 04:32:55 PM
I hear good things about Widener as well, and I know a faculty member of the university who has told me that the law school does not greatly concern itself with the ranking and would rather extend opprotunities to students it feels has shown promise yet may not have proformed as well on the lsat to get into temple, rutgers, nova etc than to exclude them from law school.  I know about a dozen good prosecutors and defense attorneys (major trial da's and top dollar private attorneys) who went to widener and they are some of the most well respected lawyers in the philadelphia court system. 

DO NOT GO TO WIDENER! I realize you think that hard work automatically pays off but there are plenty of law student's at Widener that bust their asses for 3 years only to be unable to find a job that can pay off their debt. The only trial law you will practice out of Widner is some DUI cases and a whole lot of personal injury. If you are really lucky, maybe some wrongful death. Sounds like a great career. Good luck!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,4302.msg34232.html#msg34232
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: antwan on June 10, 2006, 01:40:40 PM
If your absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer, and you cant get into anything but a tier 4, there is no wrong in attending, especially if you are offered scholarship $$. One should definetly be aware of the risks involved because they are significant. I know first hand bc I just finished my first year at florida coastal. I was fortunate to get transfer worthy grades so im out of there, but many (most actually) are disapointed with their grades because of the forced C curve. The forced curve is a huge factor because you could be smart and work hard and still literally fail out of school. Even if you graduate, if your not at the top of the class you will have an uphill battle finding a job. There are a ton of florida coastal grads without legal jobs. Theres just soooo many lawyers out there that employers dont have to take "chances" on t4 grads. If I had to do it all over again, I probably would have waited a few years, retaken the LSAT, got some kind of respectable job and reapplied. Everyone who attends a t4 thinks that they are gonna get great grades and transfer out, but the t4's have caught on to this, and the forced curve prevents all but the top from getting "transferable grades." Like I said, nothing wrong with going to a t4 but there are serious risks that many are quick to downplay. Having 100k in debt and a 40k a year job is not worth it.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: sscdsvdsc on June 11, 2006, 06:11:52 AM
If your absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer, and you cant get into anything but a tier 4, there is no wrong in attending, especially if you are offered scholarship $$. One should definetly be aware of the risks involved because they are significant. I know first hand bc I just finished my first year at florida coastal. I was fortunate to get transfer worthy grades so im out of there, but many (most actually) are disapointed with their grades because of the forced C curve. The forced curve is a huge factor because you could be smart and work hard and still literally fail out of school. Even if you graduate, if your not at the top of the class you will have an uphill battle finding a job. There are a ton of florida coastal grads without legal jobs. Theres just soooo many lawyers out there that employers dont have to take "chances" on t4 grads. If I had to do it all over again, I probably would have waited a few years, retaken the LSAT, got some kind of respectable job and reapplied. Everyone who attends a t4 thinks that they are gonna get great grades and transfer out, but the t4's have caught on to this, and the forced curve prevents all but the top from getting "transferable grades." Like I said, nothing wrong with going to a t4 but there are serious risks that many are quick to downplay. Having 100k in debt and a 40k a year job is not worth it.

You can @#!* my ass. Just a note, you know.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: datur on June 12, 2006, 07:33:37 PM
I hear good things about Widener as well, and I know a faculty member of the university who has told me that the law school does not greatly concern itself with the ranking and would rather extend opprotunities to students it feels has shown promise yet may not have proformed as well on the lsat to get into temple, rutgers, nova etc than to exclude them from law school.  I know about a dozen good prosecutors and defense attorneys (major trial da's and top dollar private attorneys) who went to widener and they are some of the most well respected lawyers in the philadelphia court system. 

DO NOT GO TO WIDENER! I realize you think that hard work automatically pays off but there are plenty of law student's at Widener that bust their asses for 3 years only to be unable to find a job that can pay off their debt. The only trial law you will practice out of Widner is some DUI cases and a whole lot of personal injury. If you are really lucky, maybe some wrongful death. Sounds like a great career. Good luck!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,4302.msg34232.html#msg34232

Widener is indeed a suck ass law school.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: getty on June 12, 2006, 08:57:29 PM

I consistently test in the 95th percentile on the IQ test, but that only translated into me landing in the top 95th percentile of a 4th tier law school (did you see what I did there? That was a joke). So, there's gotta be something else going on with me...


FYI, an 95% IQ only translates to an LSAT score of 154. There are many students at T4 that have a higher LSAT score than that. It's not that strange to fail at law school like you did, although you may be quite intelligent.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: lor on June 14, 2006, 03:42:07 PM
(http://www.shoplrp.com/product/graphics/30000_student.jpg)

http://www.shoplrp.com/product/p-30000.STUDEN3.html
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Western_MA_Law on June 15, 2006, 01:17:56 PM
Florida Coastal had the second highest bar passage rate in FL last year, behind only UF.  So one would wonder why FSU and Miami aren't there as well.  Some of you people really are sickening, let me guess you are at or near the bottom of your class so you assume becaquse you can barely get by that those at lower ranked schools (USNews is a farce in its rankings anyway) must be dumber than you.  I am quite happy where I am and I am at the top of my class right now, I have no worries finding a job where I live.  I will almost feel bad you schmucks when you fail the bar exam, keyword there is almost.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jippyjappa on June 15, 2006, 03:16:44 PM
New England is a great school with a ton of brilliant people. I love it there.

No forced curve by the way (which is a good and a bad thing).

Also, I know people get all concerned about attrition rates. There are a few ways to look at it

 1) these fourth tier schools only attract bad students, some of whom are bound to fail out, whereas tier one schools attract only smart hardworking students;

2) these fourth tier schools let unqualified people in so they can take their one year of tuition;

3) these fourth tier schools let in people other schools wouldn't, not to take their money, but rather to give them a chance at a career they obviously want. And if they don't have what it takes, yeah they are gone after one year. But at least they give them the chance, recognizing perhaps that an individual is more than an LSAT and an undergrad GPA.

Obviously, I think there is at least some truth to number 3.

Of course, then again I have a full scholarship and upon graduation will be doing the kind of legal work I want to do, rather than slaving away in some corporate 80 billable hours a week hellhole to pay off my loans like many who go to tier one schools...
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: tenth8sphere on June 15, 2006, 11:18:20 PM
Hate on tier 4's in not the way, but neither is hate on tier 1's.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jason1114 on June 16, 2006, 10:46:18 AM
I'd say the only law schools that should be avoided at all costs are the non-ABA accredited ones.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Sarah22 on June 16, 2006, 07:13:56 PM
I'm starting in the fall at a tier 4 school, and I have found some of the comments in this thread surprising.  I was accepted to "better" schools (even a tier 1), but decided that this tier 4 school will be the best fit for me for a variety of reasons.  I do not intend on transferring, and kind of resent that so many people attending tier 4s are so incredibly quick to point out that they are going to end up transferring.  Can't anybody just be happy, even for a second?  I really don't see what the big deal is.  Tier 2-4 schools are all regional schools for the most part, so I strongly doubt that it really makes a huge difference between a tier 2 and a tier 4.  It reminds me so much of stupid girls (and guys, too) who get so label obsessed that they can't be seen in public without their fill-in-the-blank purse (or whatever).  Rankings are just labels, and it's pathetic to get so caught up in it and make major life decisions based on a silly magazine (and the people who subscribe to it).  Just do what makes you happy.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: 4DClaw on June 17, 2006, 08:58:02 AM
I don't know about that. There are a lot more Brooklyn grads (Tier 2) with good NYC jobs than grads of NYLS, Hofstra, or Pace.

I'm starting in the fall at a tier 4 school, and I have found some of the comments in this thread surprising.  I was accepted to "better" schools (even a tier 1), but decided that this tier 4 school will be the best fit for me for a variety of reasons.  I do not intend on transferring, and kind of resent that so many people attending tier 4s are so incredibly quick to point out that they are going to end up transferring.  Can't anybody just be happy, even for a second?  I really don't see what the big deal is.  Tier 2-4 schools are all regional schools for the most part, so I strongly doubt that it really makes a huge difference between a tier 2 and a tier 4.  It reminds me so much of stupid girls (and guys, too) who get so label obsessed that they can't be seen in public without their fill-in-the-blank purse (or whatever).  Rankings are just labels, and it's pathetic to get so caught up in it and make major life decisions based on a silly magazine (and the people who subscribe to it).  Just do what makes you happy.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: tenth8sphere on June 17, 2006, 09:08:09 AM
I think an honest summation would be that yes, higher ranked school do offer more opportunities, but no, you're not doomed if you go to a lower ranked school. It would be wrong to say no tier 4's will ever find six figure jobs, but it would also be wrong to say a school's ranking has no influence on future job opportunities.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Butch on June 17, 2006, 10:50:13 AM
"The only trial law you will practice out of Widner is some DUI cases and a whole lot of personal injury"



That's not true. One of the partner's at my gf's law firm is a Widner grad and he is a very well respected trial attorney in the state of NJ. He's a great litigator, very well connected, and does a lot more than DUI or personal injury.

And he's definitely not earning under 6 figures!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Sarah22 on June 17, 2006, 04:39:12 PM
I don't know about that. There are a lot more Brooklyn grads (Tier 2) with good NYC jobs than grads of NYLS, Hofstra, or Pace.

I would say in big cities, you are correct, and your point is well taken.  I was thinking more of schools in the middle of the county (Chicago excluded), where the school is one of 1 or  2 school in the general area.  Lets take Kentucky for example.  There's UK in Lexington, U of Louisville in Lousiville (duh), and Northern Kentucky (one of the schools mentioned in the "law schools to avoid" orginal post)(NKU is just outside of Cincinnati, BTW).  If you look at it from a regional perspective, I'd say that none of these schools really place that much better than the next. Really, law firms surrounding schools like these tend to gravitate toward schools in their particular region, despite the fact that these schools are ranked differently (tier 1, tier 2, and tier 4). Anyway, my point is that you're probably right when talking about schools that are in big cities (and are in high competition with other school), but I'd be inclined to say that for the rest of us (the majority), schools tend to be regional feeders.  If you want to practice in Akron, Ohio for example, you should go to U of Akron (a tier 3) over, say, U of Brooklyn (a tier 2), and so on and so forth.  This is, of course, assuming that your Career Services is worth a damn (which I think is more important than the rankings).

Furthermore, if you aren't interested in BigLaw (I'm not), I really don't think rankings matter very much at all. I think that it is more important to go to a school where you want to practice, and do well.  In a lot of cases, firms, organiztions, and businesses develop strong ties to their local school, and would rather hire a local student (assuming they did well in law school), than similarly qualified student from a better school.  Of course, there are always exceptions.  I am just speaking generally.

Hopefully, that makes sense.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: mirra on June 18, 2006, 05:29:34 AM

Some of you people really are sickening, let me guess you are at or near the bottom of your class so you assume becaquse you can barely get by that those at lower ranked schools (USNews is a farce in its rankings anyway) must be dumber than you.


I am assuming you're placing these people at/near the bottom of their T1/2 class .. I'd like to see you amend your assumption and guess these schmucks to be at/near the bottom of their T4 class ..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Western_MA_Law on June 18, 2006, 04:07:52 PM
I'd say the only law schools that should be avoided at all costs are the non-ABA accredited ones.

Some of those are even alright, such as the Massachusetts School of Law.  It isn't accredited because of reasonable philopsophical debates with the ABA, such as the LSAT and the size of their library.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: ellybean909 on June 19, 2006, 02:22:22 AM
Florida Coastal has a high bpr because it is a factory. A for-profit factory. With no respect, hence very little networking potential. You can know your stuff, but no one will care.

State-only accredited schools may do well and have high bpr, and because of their character (defined by focus or library or whatever it may be) still manage to employ well. I'm not saying all or even most non-aba schools can acheive this, but they sometimes do better than aba-schools (part of the reason Golden Gate was placed on probation and other CA schools became accrediated provisionally).

And to the dumba*s that made a comment about ADD at 28 - you can develop it at any age, whether or not you are still being educated. You can get 4.0's and 99% test scores your whole life and then suddenly find yourself having extreme difficulty. Do some research before you assume you know what you're critizing.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on June 20, 2006, 09:40:02 AM

And to the dumba*s that made a comment about ADD at 28 - you can develop it at any age, whether or not you are still being educated. You can get 4.0's and 99% test scores your whole life and then suddenly find yourself having extreme difficulty. Do some research before you assume you know what you're critizing.

You have to show symptoms of impulsivity or inattention before the age of 7 for a diagnosis of ADHD.  While an adult can be diagnosed with ADHD the psychologist would have to do a retroactive diagnoses meaning that these symptons were there in childhood but never found out.  A mental health professional is typically reluctant to do so with students who were invloved in formal education due to the fact that someone else should have picked them up.  The issue of adult onset ADHD is a contraversial one right now, with some saying it can be that a person develops a new set they've never had before while another group saying it's not possible.  Currently the DSM still lists this disorder in the subsection Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood or Adolencence. And the APA has not recognized adult onset ADHD to be a valid disorder. The DSM is the publication that all mental disorders available for diagnostic are listed along with the minimum symptoms needed to meet such a diagnostic.  Its published and revised by the American Psychology Association. If it's not listed in the DSM then it basically isn't considered valid science until it gets in there. 

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/adhd.htm
if you want to read about ADHD. (formerly called ADD)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kmpnj on June 20, 2006, 10:17:40 AM

And to the dumba*s that made a comment about ADD at 28 - you can develop it at any age, whether or not you are still being educated. You can get 4.0's and 99% test scores your whole life and then suddenly find yourself having extreme difficulty. Do some research before you assume you know what you're critizing.

You have to show symptoms of impulsivity or inattention before the age of 7 for a diagnosis of ADHD.  While an adult can be diagnosed with ADHD the psychologist would have to do a retroactive diagnoses meaning that these symptons were there in childhood but never found out.  A mental health professional is typically reluctant to do so with students who were invloved in formal education due to the fact that someone else should have picked them up.  The issue of adult onset ADHD is a contraversial one right now, with some saying it can be that a person develops a new set they've never had before while another group saying it's not possible.  Currently the DSM still lists this disorder in the subsection Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood or Adolencence. And the APA has not recognized adult onset ADHD to be a valid disorder. The DSM is the publication that all mental disorders available for diagnostic are listed along with the minimum symptoms needed to meet such a diagnostic.  Its published and revised by the American Psychology Association. If it's not listed in the DSM then it basically isn't considered valid science until it gets in there. 

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/adhd.htm
if you want to read about ADHD. (formerly called ADD)

This is true.  The DSM IV is the standard for psychological disorders.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: da! on June 25, 2006, 03:13:14 PM
(http://www.gsweeny.com/images/port/lawyer.jpg)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: fani on June 25, 2006, 03:29:24 PM

FYI, an 95% IQ only translates to an LSAT score of 154. There are many students at T4 that have a higher LSAT score than that.


Unless there's tremendous bundling around the 151 mean, I tend to believe 95% IQ equals 158 LSAT.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Budlaw on June 25, 2006, 05:10:42 PM

FYI, an 95% IQ only translates to an LSAT score of 154. There are many students at T4 that have a higher LSAT score than that.


Unless there's tremendous bundling around the 151 mean, I tend to believe 95% IQ equals 158 LSAT.

The LSAT isn't designed to measure IQ. As much as some people would like it to, it just doesn't. If it did then there would be no reason for you to take the LSAT. You could just take an IQ test and use it instead.

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: rosanne on June 25, 2006, 06:23:51 PM
LSAT is essentially an IQ test.
Title: Cut/Paste Please Stop It!
Post by: yn on June 25, 2006, 07:10:48 PM
I consistently test in the 95th percentile on the IQ test, but that only translated into me landing in the top 95th percentile of a 4th tier law school (did you see what I did there? That was a joke). So, there's gotta be something else going on with me...

Anyway, what I really feel is anger toward myself (I'll get to that) but especially toward the school. After being shown the door I had nothing but time to do a bit of research and came to realize that my fourth-tier law school had a bit of a ponsi scheme going on .. What I suspect is that lower tier schools accept people who don't necessarily demonstrate true aptitude for legal study, nor passage of the bar, in the interest of generating revenue. That revenue is then used toward rank-improving initiatives, such as a new coat of paint, the odd computer, rat-traps or a halfway decent booze-cruise.

These lower tier schools actually set their curves lower than the upper tiers meaning that while a 2.5 may be a C+ at Michigan, a 2.5 is a D+ at Lionel Hutz School of Law. Since Law School is a sum-zero game it is inevitable that, say, 10-20% of the 1L's at a fourth tier school will fall below a certain line and receive a waive good-bye from the dean while he lights a cigar with your money. See, once they have your money they are then concerned with your ability to pass the bar, which is also used in assessing the school's ranking. An academic review committee gets together and makes a simple, cold business decision as to whether or not you are worth their kid's braces. From all I've read and heard, the practice is nowhere near as common in the upper tiers. Once you're there, you're there.

I can't @ # ! * i n g believe I didn't figure this out before it was too late because I've always had an aptitude for that sort of reasoning (I'm applying to business school now, by the way). Everyone told me to not even bother applying if I got below a 160 on the LSAT, and moreover not to let that particular 4th tier law school fleece me the way they did. But of course, every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason. What an arrogant little SOB I was.

I'm also angry at myself because, at 28 I've just learned that I'm ADD and Dyslexic. Had I taken the odd pill here or there half of my problems would likely have been ameliorated. The other half of my problems is caused by the fact that I'm a tremendous not so nice person, but Merk has yet to develop medication for that ...


Posted by: st96f49t | October 21, 2005 at 02:38 PM

http://civpro.blogs.com/civil_procedure/2004/01/first_semester_.html
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: ellybean909 on June 25, 2006, 08:42:20 PM

And to the dumba*s that made a comment about ADD at 28 - you can develop it at any age, whether or not you are still being educated. You can get 4.0's and 99% test scores your whole life and then suddenly find yourself having extreme difficulty. Do some research before you assume you know what you're critizing.

You have to show symptoms of impulsivity or inattention before the age of 7 for a diagnosis of ADHD.  While an adult can be diagnosed with ADHD the psychologist would have to do a retroactive diagnoses meaning that these symptons were there in childhood but never found out.  A mental health professional is typically reluctant to do so with students who were invloved in formal education due to the fact that someone else should have picked them up.  The issue of adult onset ADHD is a contraversial one right now, with some saying it can be that a person develops a new set they've never had before while another group saying it's not possible.  Currently the DSM still lists this disorder in the subsection Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood or Adolencence. And the APA has not recognized adult onset ADHD to be a valid disorder. The DSM is the publication that all mental disorders available for diagnostic are listed along with the minimum symptoms needed to meet such a diagnostic.  Its published and revised by the American Psychology Association. If it's not listed in the DSM then it basically isn't considered valid science until it gets in there. 

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/adhd.htm
if you want to read about ADHD. (formerly called ADD)

Behavenet is not summarizing DSM-IV - it is commentating on some medical views on the condition. True DSM-IV on the condition if very vague. Also, the medical community has expanded its diagnostic capability to combine the ADD/ADHD definition into one with three categories: "the DSM-IV identifies three sub-types of AD/HD, depending on the presence or absence of particular symptoms: Inattentive type, Hyperactive type, and Combined type."

Myth # 2: AD/HD is a Disorder of Childhood

Early discussions of AD/HD theorized that individuals outgrew the disorder (Ingram, Hechtman, & Morgenstein, 1999). This notion has been dispelled by long-term studies showing that anywhere from 70-80 percent of children with AD/HD exhibit significant signs of restlessness and distractibility into adolescence and young adulthood, while a large percentage suffer co-morbid psychiatric disorders, academic failure, and social isolation and/or rejection (Barkley et al., 1990; Barkley, 1998). Research estimates that 1.5 to 2 percent of adults have AD/HD (Hunt, 1997), and between two and six percent of adolescents have AD/HD (Murphy & Barkley, 1996). Cuffe et al. (2001) found that children with persistent AD/HD have more severe AD/HD and adverse risk factors later in life. Adverse factors impact the expression of AD/HD and increase the risk for associated disorders that compromise adjustment over the lifespan. Thus, AD/HD is a lifelong disorder that requires a developmental framework for appropriate diagnosis and treatment (Teeter, 1998).

The DSM-IV recognizes it is not only a development of childhood and does NOT specify age:

n children and teenagers, the symptoms must be more frequent or severe compared to other children the same age. In adults, the symptoms must affect the ability to function in daily life and persist from childhood.

In addition, the behaviors must create significant difficulty in at least two areas of life, such as home, social settings, school, or work. Symptoms must be present for at least six months.

Criteria for the three primary subtypes are:

AD/HD - Inattentive Type

    * Fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes.
    * Has difficulty sustaining attention.
    * Does not appear to listen.
    * Struggles to follow through on instructions.
    * Has difficulty with organization.
    * Avoids or dislikes tasks requiring sustained mental effort.
    * Loses things.
    * Is easily distracted.
    * Is forgetful in daily activities.

AD/HD - Hyperactive Type

    * Fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in chair.
    * Has difficulty remaining seated.
    * Runs about or climbs excessively.
    * Difficulty engaging in activities quietly.
    * Acts as if driven by a motor.
    * Talks excessively.
    * Blurts out answers before questions have been completed.
    * Difficulty waiting or taking turns.
    * Interrupts or intrudes upon others.

AD/HD - Combined Type

    * Individual meets both sets of inattention and hyperactive/impulsive criteria.

- http://www.help4adhd.org/en/treatment/guides/dsm

---

Also...as for your mark that the APA doesn't recognize adult onset AD/HD - they seem to have not made a comment either way. They do, however, recognize it can LAST a lifetime:

"Current research demonstrates that ADHD is a complex disorder that may affect someone across his or her entire life span." - http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pconstest.html

---

AD/HD is very misunderstood still. Maybe if people (not you, but in general) took the time to research it, these assumptions like the one you quoted wouldn't be made.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Budlaw on June 25, 2006, 10:28:13 PM
LSAT is essentially an IQ test.

"Essentially" is not the same as "actually". People that score in the 50th percintile of an IQ can't even get into college. Wheras people that score in the 50th percintile of the LSAT are college graduates.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: hotdiggity on June 26, 2006, 12:02:01 PM

And to the dumba*s that made a comment about ADD at 28 - you can develop it at any age, whether or not you are still being educated. You can get 4.0's and 99% test scores your whole life and then suddenly find yourself having extreme difficulty. Do some research before you assume you know what you're critizing.

You have to show symptoms of impulsivity or inattention before the age of 7 for a diagnosis of ADHD.  While an adult can be diagnosed with ADHD the psychologist would have to do a retroactive diagnoses meaning that these symptons were there in childhood but never found out.  A mental health professional is typically reluctant to do so with students who were invloved in formal education due to the fact that someone else should have picked them up.  The issue of adult onset ADHD is a contraversial one right now, with some saying it can be that a person develops a new set they've never had before while another group saying it's not possible.  Currently the DSM still lists this disorder in the subsection Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood or Adolencence. And the APA has not recognized adult onset ADHD to be a valid disorder. The DSM is the publication that all mental disorders available for diagnostic are listed along with the minimum symptoms needed to meet such a diagnostic.  Its published and revised by the American Psychology Association. If it's not listed in the DSM then it basically isn't considered valid science until it gets in there. 

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/adhd.htm
if you want to read about ADHD. (formerly called ADD)

Behavenet is not summarizing DSM-IV - it is commentating on some medical views on the condition. True DSM-IV on the condition if very vague. Also, the medical community has expanded its diagnostic capability to combine the ADD/ADHD definition into one with three categories: "the DSM-IV identifies three sub-types of AD/HD, depending on the presence or absence of particular symptoms: Inattentive type, Hyperactive type, and Combined type."

Myth # 2: AD/HD is a Disorder of Childhood

Early discussions of AD/HD theorized that individuals outgrew the disorder (Ingram, Hechtman, & Morgenstein, 1999). This notion has been dispelled by long-term studies showing that anywhere from 70-80 percent of children with AD/HD exhibit significant signs of restlessness and distractibility into adolescence and young adulthood, while a large percentage suffer co-morbid psychiatric disorders, academic failure, and social isolation and/or rejection (Barkley et al., 1990; Barkley, 1998). Research estimates that 1.5 to 2 percent of adults have AD/HD (Hunt, 1997), and between two and six percent of adolescents have AD/HD (Murphy & Barkley, 1996). Cuffe et al. (2001) found that children with persistent AD/HD have more severe AD/HD and adverse risk factors later in life. Adverse factors impact the expression of AD/HD and increase the risk for associated disorders that compromise adjustment over the lifespan. Thus, AD/HD is a lifelong disorder that requires a developmental framework for appropriate diagnosis and treatment (Teeter, 1998).

The DSM-IV recognizes it is not only a development of childhood and does NOT specify age:

n children and teenagers, the symptoms must be more frequent or severe compared to other children the same age. In adults, the symptoms must affect the ability to function in daily life and persist from childhood.

In addition, the behaviors must create significant difficulty in at least two areas of life, such as home, social settings, school, or work. Symptoms must be present for at least six months.

Criteria for the three primary subtypes are:

AD/HD - Inattentive Type

    * Fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes.
    * Has difficulty sustaining attention.
    * Does not appear to listen.
    * Struggles to follow through on instructions.
    * Has difficulty with organization.
    * Avoids or dislikes tasks requiring sustained mental effort.
    * Loses things.
    * Is easily distracted.
    * Is forgetful in daily activities.

AD/HD - Hyperactive Type

    * Fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in chair.
    * Has difficulty remaining seated.
    * Runs about or climbs excessively.
    * Difficulty engaging in activities quietly.
    * Acts as if driven by a motor.
    * Talks excessively.
    * Blurts out answers before questions have been completed.
    * Difficulty waiting or taking turns.
    * Interrupts or intrudes upon others.

AD/HD - Combined Type

    * Individual meets both sets of inattention and hyperactive/impulsive criteria.

- http://www.help4adhd.org/en/treatment/guides/dsm

---

Also...as for your mark that the APA doesn't recognize adult onset AD/HD - they seem to have not made a comment either way. They do, however, recognize it can LAST a lifetime:

"Current research demonstrates that ADHD is a complex disorder that may affect someone across his or her entire life span." - http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pconstest.html

---

AD/HD is very misunderstood still. Maybe if people (not you, but in general) took the time to research it, these assumptions like the one you quoted wouldn't be made.

behavnet listed the disorder exactly as the DSM states it, I've checked both the DSM and 2 textbooks I have.  I never said the disorder was only present in children, rather that you must show signs of it in childhood for the disorder to be diagnosed.  What I was referring to was someone who stated that at 28 years old they developed ADHD and went from a genius to failing out of law school. The DSM states explicitly that you must show symptoms before 7 years old.  Not that you meet criterian but show some of the symptoms, you're correct in saying in can last a lifetime and I didn't dispute that fact.  However it is listed as a disorder, "first diagnosed in infancy, childhoold or adolescence." I've done my reserach I've written papers on ADHD, I have a psychology degree from one of the most respected psych programs on the east coast.  So I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to this.   
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: nesl512 on June 26, 2006, 01:53:18 PM
To whom may be concerned by this post:
This is all bulls**t. 
Don't believe the rumors that some snot-nosed 22 year-old on a glory trip is feeding you through this post.  There's something about law students (especially those at top schools) that feel it necessary to rip on T4 schools.  Why is that?  Did you do poorly this year?  Does everyone at school dislike you because you're an a**hole?  I'm sure there is some deep seeded reason that you feel it necessary to act like caddy middle school girl.
I go to New England and it's fine...it's great in fact.  My teachers went to Harvard, Stanford, etc.  I learn the same sh*t as everyone else.  I have a summer internship.  I have classmates that work in the governor's office and the DA's office (this is in Boston too where the competition for law students huge).  There is nothing funny about the curve.  We do not loose 30% of 1Ls.
Don't believe the hype!     
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: ellybean909 on June 26, 2006, 02:42:40 PM

behavnet listed the disorder exactly as the DSM states it, I've checked both the DSM and 2 textbooks I have.  I never said the disorder was only present in children, rather that you must show signs of it in childhood for the disorder to be diagnosed.  What I was referring to was someone who stated that at 28 years old they developed ADHD and went from a genius to failing out of law school. The DSM states explicitly that you must show symptoms before 7 years old.  Not that you meet criterian but show some of the symptoms, you're correct in saying in can last a lifetime and I didn't dispute that fact.  However it is listed as a disorder, "first diagnosed in infancy, childhoold or adolescence." I've done my reserach I've written papers on ADHD, I have a psychology degree from one of the most respected psych programs on the east coast.  So I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to this.   

I'm not doubting you - i'm doubting commentary that regards AD/HD as a disorder specifically targeted to children.

I was diagnosed at 20 years old, and looking *back* it makes a lot of sense. However, I was constantly in an environment that allowed me to thrive without significant challenge or detriment to my ego and self. Upon entering college, I found a new environment that allowed the AD/HD to become a signficant challenge. I don't understand how or why environmental changes can do this, but the 28 year old you speak of could have always "suffered" - just not known it due to environemnt. I hope this makes sense.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jason1114 on June 26, 2006, 02:56:16 PM
LSAT is essentially an IQ test.

"Essentially" is not the same as "actually". People that score in the 50th percintile of an IQ can't even get into college. Wheras people that score in the 50th percintile of the LSAT are college graduates.

Ahh... I will have to respectively disagree here, 50th percentile IQ would make you decidely average. And any average kid can study their ass off and make it through an undergrad degree (maybe not in mechanical engineering, or something technical in nature, but a comm or business degree).
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: ellybean909 on June 27, 2006, 01:58:30 AM
LSAT is essentially an IQ test.

"Essentially" is not the same as "actually". People that score in the 50th percintile of an IQ can't even get into college. Wheras people that score in the 50th percintile of the LSAT are college graduates.

Ahh... I will have to respectively disagree here, 50th percentile IQ would make you decidely average. And any average kid can study their ass off and make it through an undergrad degree (maybe not in mechanical engineering, or something technical in nature, but a comm or business degree).

I think you're confusing the "average" person in general with the "average" person you know.

There are a lot of literally stupid people out there. I'm not referring to disabled or slow. Just not smart (compared to you and I and the rest of the board who could be labeled as such based upon measures of intelligence and true ability.)

There may be more people attending college, making it seem more average, but I still don't beleive the "average" person can graduate from a university - with any degree.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: antwan on June 27, 2006, 07:04:18 AM
agreed, i currently live in the south where the average person has about 4 teeth and thinks that the civil war is still going on.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Erapitt on June 27, 2006, 07:27:43 AM
What you are failing to realize is that the United States has a 33% illiteracy rate.

Yet you think the "average" person can graduate college.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Dxion on June 27, 2006, 07:30:06 AM
I'm from the Deep South and everyone I know has all their teeth, is well educated, and makes good money. Of course, I don't live in the 'hood. The fact that"everyone" you associate with is missing teeth says more about you than anything else.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: bgjyhfd on June 28, 2006, 07:18:38 PM

What you are failing to realize is that the United States has a 33% illiteracy rate.


LOl ;)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Erapitt on June 29, 2006, 05:17:30 AM
What you are failing to realize is that the United States has a 33% illiteracy rate.


you have a link for this claim?

I am glad this was challenged as I was a bit off in my posting.  The world illiteracy rate is upwards of 35%+.  However, the illiteracy rate in the U.S. is only around 14%.  Nonetheless, this is still an extremely high percentage.  It also is enough to comment that the statement regarding the "average person" as intelligent is far from accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_rate#The_United_States

See the study by the NAAL for detailed statistics.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jason1114 on June 29, 2006, 09:40:45 AM
 It also is enough to comment that the statement regarding the "average person" as intelligent is far from accurate.

I agree, the average person is not intelligent. They are average.

I've worked at a couple of colleges as a computer tech, as well as network support, and most people are dumb as rocks. They still get degrees. The average person (with an IQ of 100) can get a degree. They have to work their ass off. But I've personally seen it happen countless times. Never underestimate the power of the paper and the extra food it will put on the table of a toothless, southern redneck fathermeaning to provide more for his mullet-headed children.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: loquitur on July 02, 2006, 09:17:44 PM
Here in Chicago DePaul has a good rep for health law, John Marshall does not have a good rep. I have heard complaints from bottom half of the class people at DePaul, Kent, Loyola and John Marshall landing permanent jobs in the city (no real surprise about that though) but there seems to be a lot of temp work.

Students from lower ranked schools have a problem in that they get a lot of the T1's in the Midwest going to Chicago for biglaw. For instance, besides UC and NW placing well in the city, Michigan places a lot. You also have students from Wisconsin, Notre Dame, and Illinois that all go to the city seeking fame and fortune.

All this being said, there is still opportunity. The city and burbs are huge; one of the people I know through a mutual friend that went to Kent did okay in her class, but didn't get into a large firm, she was worried she wouldn't pass the bar and was freaking out. But she was able to work her school contacts and land a gig in DC working as a foreign legal liason for one of the Ill. congressmen. A sister of a classmate of mine went to John Marshall, did mediocre and hasn't been able to land anything beyond a temp position in a little over a year. I don't know how hard she is looking, etc. but that is where she is at presently.
Title: Don't be an arrogant little SOB!
Post by: thingy on July 07, 2006, 04:21:13 PM

If your absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer, and you cant get into anything but a Tier 4, there is no wrong in attending, especially if you are offered scholarship $$. One should definetly be aware of the risks involved because they are significant. I know first hand because I just finished my first year at Florida Coastal. I was fortunate to get transfer worthy grades so I'm out of there, but many (most actually) are disapointed with their grades because of the forced C curve. The forced curve is a huge factor because you could be smart and work hard and still literally fail out of school. Even if you graduate, if you're not at the top of the class you will have an uphill battle finding a job. There are a ton of Florida Coastal grads without legal jobs. There are just soooo many lawyers out there that employers don't have to take "chances" on T4 grads. If I had to do it all over again, I probably would have waited a few years, retaken the LSAT, got some kind of respectable job and reapplied. Everyone who attends a T4 thinks that they are gonna get great grades and transfer out, but the T4's have caught on to this, and the forced curve prevents all but the top from getting "transferable grades." Like I said, nothing wrong with going to a T4 but there are serious risks that many are quick to downplay. Having 100k in debt and a 40k a year job is not worth it.


Don't let 4th Tier law schools fleece you! I understand that most won't hear -- after all every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason -- but don't tell me I didn't warn you when you get burned!
Title: Re: Don't be an arrogant little SOB!
Post by: jippyjappa on July 10, 2006, 08:33:25 PM

Don't let 4th Tier law schools fleece you! I understand that most won't hear -- after all every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason -- but don't tell me I didn't warn you when you get burned!

Maybe some of them fleece you but I think most provide needed opportunities by giving students a chance to be lawyers when other law schools wouldn't. If they flunk out after first year, it is the student's fault, not the school's. And yeah, if the student had done better on the LSAT or studied more in undergrad (or been a legacy), maybe they could have gotten into a law school where you are guaranteed to graduate. Frankly, I find nothing wrong with graduation being earned, not a right granted at admission.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jason1114 on July 10, 2006, 09:06:45 PM
As much as I'm glad I'm not going to a 4th tier school, I think that there is a place for these schools. After all, if there weren't some people who did well after graduating from these schools (well being a relative term); then I doubt that these schools would still have hundreds of people appying to them...
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jasonbpear on July 11, 2006, 01:24:16 AM
Ok, so here is the reason to avoid lower ranked law schools.  It has nothing to do with quality of the professorate, although they may be better at better schools, and it has nothing to do with the students, although they may too be better at better schools.  The REAL reason why better schools are better is because of the opportunity offered by those better schools.  Education in America is essentially used by employers to sort individuals.  If you don’t agree/understand this then you aren’t living in the same nation as me.  Obviously this is not as important to solo practitioners.  This is the single most important that an individual should choose a better regarded PROFESSIONAL school, because it opens more doors.  If you would like there are many books asserting my thesis (as if it really must be reasoned, it is so obvious that it’s not necessary to state it) including my favorite “The Big Test: The Secret of the American Meritocracy”
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jippyjappa on July 11, 2006, 06:16:14 AM
Ok, so here is the reason to avoid lower ranked law schools.  It has nothing to do with quality of the professorate, although they may be better at better schools, and it has nothing to do with the students, although they may too be better at better schools.  The REAL reason why better schools are better is because of the opportunity offered by those better schools.  Education in America is essentially used by employers to sort individuals.  If you don’t agree/understand this then you aren’t living in the same nation as me.  Obviously this is not as important to solo practitioners.  This is the single most important that an individual should choose a better regarded PROFESSIONAL school, because it opens more doors.  If you would like there are many books asserting my thesis (as if it really must be reasoned, it is so obvious that it’s not necessary to state it) including my favorite “The Big Test: The Secret of the American Meritocracy”

well, yeah, no kidding. I there was one reason I would give to go to a higher ranked school it would be the on-campus interviewing and the career center in general. Of course, if you get into a teir one school you shoudl avoid lower ranked schools. But if you didn't, that doesn't mean you should just give up on being a lawyer and go for a grad. degree in english lit. The T4 schools will still alow you to go out hang a shingle, get a great government job, or work for a small perosnal injury, family law, or criminal defense firm. Most of the opportunities you lose are with big firms, with a career as a law professor, with the possibility of a judgeship down the road, or with the more prestigous clerkships. BUt if you're not taht interesting in that and you just want to be a lawyer, you know who actually spends time in court with civil litigation or criminal defense, you don't lose that much by going to a lower ranked school. Of course, if your goal is to work for a big corporate firm, yeah, you gotta be at the very top of your 4T school to even get an interview (where at many 1T schools who gets interviews are determined by lottery).
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: align on July 13, 2006, 12:55:53 AM

Ok, so here is the reason to avoid lower ranked law schools. It has nothing to do with quality of the professorate, although they may be better at better schools, and it has nothing to do with the students, although they may too be better at better schools.  The REAL reason why better schools are better is because of the opportunity offered by those better schools.  Education in America is essentially used by employers to sort individuals.  If you don’t agree/understand this then you aren’t living in the same nation as me.  Obviously this is not as important to solo practitioners.  This is the single most important that an individual should choose a better regarded PROFESSIONAL school, because it opens more doors.  If you would like there are many books asserting my thesis (as if it really must be reasoned, it is so obvious that it's not necessary to state it) including my favorite "The Big Test: The Secret of the American Meritocracy"


TITCR!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ronald Hyatt on July 15, 2006, 12:49:10 AM
If you would like there are many books asserting my thesis (as if it really must be reasoned, it is so obvious that it’s not necessary to state it) including my favorite “The Big Test: The Secret of the American Meritocracy”

American Meritocracy!?!?!?! Can someone reconcile this with Goerge W. Bush?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: rev on July 15, 2006, 07:39:51 AM

And to the dumba*s that made a comment about ADD at 28 - you can develop it at any age, whether or not you are still being educated. You can get 4.0's and 99% test scores your whole life and then suddenly find yourself having extreme difficulty. Do some research before you assume you know what you're critizing.



there is no such thing as "adult onset" adhd.  you've either had it your whole life (and not have it correctly diagnosed -- i was diagnosed at age 40, when i was growing up it was 'laziness' or 'not working up to potential') or you haven't
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: rev on July 15, 2006, 07:44:13 AM
I support Gay Marriage for no reason other than that it would result in Gay Divorce. There would be nothing funnier than watching a couple of homos duke in out in court over a fondue set.

Wow how did you know all "homos" own a fondue set!?1 You are quite informed!





EVERY married couple has a fondue set.  they get at least a dozen of them as wedding presents
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: vroman on July 20, 2006, 11:52:48 PM
I find it ironic that by criticizing ANY ABA school, you are essentially criticizing the judgment of the ABA itself, and therefore ALL ABA schools.  Either all the ABA schools are good schools or the ABA is a bogus organization.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: klinex on July 21, 2006, 03:40:00 AM
John Marshall (Chicago) has a horrible reputation in the Chicagoland area.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kmpnj on July 21, 2006, 09:19:28 AM
If you would like there are many books asserting my thesis (as if it really must be reasoned, it is so obvious that it’s not necessary to state it) including my favorite “The Big Test: The Secret of the American Meritocracy”

American Meritocracy!?!?!?! Can someone reconcile this with Goerge W. Bush?


To be fair, John Kerry got worse grades at Yale than Bush did.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: dsnutter on July 21, 2006, 02:50:03 PM
right now i am hell bent on staying in california for law school (which i am applying to in the fall), but i don't think i will get in anywhere other than thomas jefferson or whittier. i am an engineering student currently, with average grades. i believe it will be my lsat score that keeps me from a decent school. does that mean i am crap out of luck for a good future in law?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: entelle on July 21, 2006, 07:21:42 PM
JD Jive is a good example of the desperate situation many new lawyers find themselves in.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: inny on July 26, 2006, 02:24:41 AM
very intersting thread!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Not Given on July 26, 2006, 10:18:49 PM
I can only speak about two schools that I have first hand knowledge about. Regarding the statement to avoid these law schools at all costs: John Marshall School Chicago and also Thurgood Marshall School of Law are good law schools and produce some really great lawyers. I would hope that anyone who has an interest in either of these schools will take the time to research and get the facts and not listen to those who have been misinformed.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: tired3L on July 27, 2006, 12:12:29 AM
Avoid UWLA at all costs!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: manilafullof on July 27, 2006, 12:59:53 AM

I can only speak about two schools that I have first hand knowledge about. Regarding the statement to avoid these law schools at all costs: John Marshall School Chicago and also Thurgood Marshall School of Law are good law schools and produce some really great lawyers. I would hope that anyone who has an interest in either of these schools will take the time to research and get the facts and not listen to those who have been misinformed.


http://www.lawstudentparadise.com/forums/pre-law-discussion/7748-law-schools-avoid-all-costs-4.html#post109866
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ronald Hyatt on July 27, 2006, 10:34:50 AM
Avoid UWLA at all costs!

and People's College of Law (http://peoplescollegeoflaw.edu/photos/2003-2004/images/2004_0331_185511AA_JPG.jpg)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: NorthEast_1L on July 27, 2006, 01:46:50 PM
I spoke to a friend of mine last week who mentioned his brother in law was a 3L at Roger Williams this year.  When I asked him how he enjoyed the school; this was his bro. in laws exact statement.  "I hate it, my professors are terrible and I will be lucky to to get a job as a call center manager."  Ouch... Granted, this is just one experience; and I personally am not at Harvard or anything... but seriously..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Not Given on July 30, 2006, 01:40:41 AM

I can only speak about two schools that I have first hand knowledge about. Regarding the statement to avoid these law schools at all costs: John Marshall School Chicago and also Thurgood Marshall School of Law are good law schools and produce some really great lawyers. I would hope that anyone who has an interest in either of these schools will take the time to research and get the facts and not listen to those who have been misinformed.

  Just as I indicated in my original post -- TAKE TIME TO RESEARCH AND GET THE FACTS AND DO NOT LISTEN TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN MISINFORMED.  THIS MESSAGE BOARD THAT YOU SITE TO HAS A POSTER THAT MAY NOT ATTEND THE LAW SCHOOL.  GET FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

http://www.lawstudentparadise.com/forums/pre-law-discussion/7748-law-schools-avoid-all-costs-4.html#post109866
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Sexual Harassment Panda on July 30, 2006, 07:08:24 AM
If you would like there are many books asserting my thesis (as if it really must be reasoned, it is so obvious that it’s not necessary to state it) including my favorite “The Big Test: The Secret of the American Meritocracy”

American Meritocracy!?!?!?! Can someone reconcile this with Goerge W. Bush?

See The Peter Principle for your GWB reconciliation.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Sexual Harassment Panda on July 30, 2006, 07:14:22 AM
I find it ironic that by criticizing ANY ABA school, you are essentially criticizing the judgment of the ABA itself, and therefore ALL ABA schools.  Either all the ABA schools are good schools or the ABA is a bogus organization.

Expect the obviousness of this post to be duly ignored by the bilious trolls herein.
Title: Amway
Post by: reclaimyourhapiness on August 03, 2006, 04:55:53 PM

http://www.lawstudentparadise.com/forums/pre-law-discussion/7748-law-schools-avoid-all-costs-4.html#post109866


Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etcetera).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult."

So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.

Not surprisingly, Amway itself states that it is not a cult:

Quote
- I've heard rumors that Amway is a cult. Is this true?
- No, Amway Corporation is a business and, similar to other large and established companies, has a distinct environment defined by shared business goals. Shared business philosophies should not be misinterpreted as a cult.

As a part of a group of companies whose most recent fiscal year global sales totaled $4.5 billion and which manufacture and distribute quality products and services, Amway offers a business opportunity that is open to all, regardless of religious beliefs, race or gender. Amway really is a microcosm of the world, with more than 3.6 million entrepreneurs worldwide representing nearly every culture, ethnic background, and political and religious belief finding in the Amway business a way to meet their goals.

While unique as individuals, Amway IBOs share a desire to succeed in a business of their own and recognize Amway as an excellent opportunity to achieve their goals. New IBOs receive training, motivation and support in building independent businesses, and are rewarded for their achievements.

A close look at Amway will reveal that any reference to Amway as a cult is incorrect.

In an unrelated issue, Amway has been the subject of a legal fight on charges of spreading rumors about competitor Procter & Gamble's alleged involvement with Satanism. But court records show that such rumors were spread by a small number of independent, indivdual Amway distributors. Moreover, as a lawyer for Amway pointed out, "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false."

Note also that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Amway Corporation is blameless in this matter:

Quote
The Federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held Amway Corporation blameless [additional] in the spread of an old rumor about Procter & Gamble being involved with Satanism. This decision should finally put to rest Procter & Gamble's unjust efforts to hold Amway responsible for the false rumor.

The Court of Appeals, reviewing a decision by a Utah federal district court, soundly rejected P&G's accusations against Amway by ruling: "In the present case, P&G cites no facts to show that Amway told the distributors to spread the [Satanism] message.'' The court also stated that "Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that spreading ... satanic rumors regarding P&G ... was naturally and ordinarily incident to Amway's business." (...)

"If a $40-billion dollar corporate Goliath like P & G continues to pursue its case against the four individuals in Utah, P&G will only prove that it is a corporate bully," said Mohr. "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false. I am confident that these individuals will prevail; P&G is picking on them just because they are Amway distributors."

Earlier this week, Procter & Gamble and its attorneys, the Cincinnati firm of Dinsmore & Shohl, were ordered to stand trial in Michigan federal court on charges that they inappropriately funneled misleading documents to an anti- Amway web site run by an individual who was also a paid consultant.

"Before filing its first lawsuit, P&G praised Amway for its efforts to quash the Satanism rumor," Mohr said. "Since then, P&G has been cynically using Amway as a publicity scapegoat for a rumor they have not been able to stop for almost 20 years, and they let things get personal. We're glad to be vindicated."
Title: Re: Amway
Post by: derailit on August 03, 2006, 05:15:23 PM

Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etcetera).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult."

So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.

Not surprisingly, Amway itself states that it is not a cult:

Quote
- I've heard rumors that Amway is a cult. Is this true?
- No, Amway Corporation is a business and, similar to other large and established companies, has a distinct environment defined by shared business goals. Shared business philosophies should not be misinterpreted as a cult.

As a part of a group of companies whose most recent fiscal year global sales totaled $4.5 billion and which manufacture and distribute quality products and services, Amway offers a business opportunity that is open to all, regardless of religious beliefs, race or gender. Amway really is a microcosm of the world, with more than 3.6 million entrepreneurs worldwide representing nearly every culture, ethnic background, and political and religious belief finding in the Amway business a way to meet their goals.

While unique as individuals, Amway IBOs share a desire to succeed in a business of their own and recognize Amway as an excellent opportunity to achieve their goals. New IBOs receive training, motivation and support in building independent businesses, and are rewarded for their achievements.

A close look at Amway will reveal that any reference to Amway as a cult is incorrect.

In an unrelated issue, Amway has been the subject of a legal fight on charges of spreading rumors about competitor Procter & Gamble's alleged involvement with Satanism. But court records show that such rumors were spread by a small number of independent, indivdual Amway distributors. Moreover, as a lawyer for Amway pointed out, "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false."


My, my, my!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: yearinyearout on August 05, 2006, 09:39:36 PM

It looks like you just picked some random T4s.

You are a turd and this is mere flame biat.


So true!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: vault on August 07, 2006, 10:57:26 PM
Indeed, derailit, that post is strange, I mean it didn't have to pop up here ..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: veganvenus on August 08, 2006, 03:54:32 PM
I think both sides have good points - it's just hard to make the (valid) argument that you're better off at a higher-ranked school without seeming to 'look down' on those who do. 

I simply don't get those people who were bragging about not studying for the LSAT, especially the poster who said he had better things to do at his job.  I took a low-paying 9-5 job and spent a year really preparing.  The effort landed me in a higher-ranked school than I would otherwise have gotten into - which in the long run will more than compensate me for the money I could have earned that year in a more demanding job.  I don't know how people studied for the LSAT while a college student, and I give you credit. 

And while I would have still had a chance to eventually make six figures, I'd much rather just make that my first year out (instead of working my way up), and not have to go through the trials of a T4, period. My friend who attends one has to deal with a much more stressful atmosphere, fear of failing out, closed-book exams(!), killer curves, and a competitive student body. These factors alone justify the extra year I took on my apps and LSAT.

But the long-run economics are still the most compelling factor.  Barring those with a set career path where rank doesn't matter, it's just penny-wise and pound-foolish to go to a school with lesser job prospects just because it's cheaper.
Title: Re: Amway
Post by: r e g g i e on August 11, 2006, 10:36:09 AM

http://www.lawstudentparadise.com/forums/pre-law-discussion/7748-law-schools-avoid-all-costs-4.html#post109866


Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etcetera).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult."

So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.

Not surprisingly, Amway itself states that it is not a cult:

Quote
- I've heard rumors that Amway is a cult. Is this true?
- No, Amway Corporation is a business and, similar to other large and established companies, has a distinct environment defined by shared business goals. Shared business philosophies should not be misinterpreted as a cult.

As a part of a group of companies whose most recent fiscal year global sales totaled $4.5 billion and which manufacture and distribute quality products and services, Amway offers a business opportunity that is open to all, regardless of religious beliefs, race or gender. Amway really is a microcosm of the world, with more than 3.6 million entrepreneurs worldwide representing nearly every culture, ethnic background, and political and religious belief finding in the Amway business a way to meet their goals.

While unique as individuals, Amway IBOs share a desire to succeed in a business of their own and recognize Amway as an excellent opportunity to achieve their goals. New IBOs receive training, motivation and support in building independent businesses, and are rewarded for their achievements.

A close look at Amway will reveal that any reference to Amway as a cult is incorrect.

In an unrelated issue, Amway has been the subject of a legal fight on charges of spreading rumors about competitor Procter & Gamble's alleged involvement with Satanism. But court records show that such rumors were spread by a small number of independent, indivdual Amway distributors. Moreover, as a lawyer for Amway pointed out, "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false."

Note also that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Amway Corporation is blameless in this matter:

Quote
The Federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held Amway Corporation blameless [additional] in the spread of an old rumor about Procter & Gamble being involved with Satanism. This decision should finally put to rest Procter & Gamble's unjust efforts to hold Amway responsible for the false rumor.

The Court of Appeals, reviewing a decision by a Utah federal district court, soundly rejected P&G's accusations against Amway by ruling: "In the present case, P&G cites no facts to show that Amway told the distributors to spread the [Satanism] message.'' The court also stated that "Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that spreading ... satanic rumors regarding P&G ... was naturally and ordinarily incident to Amway's business." (...)

"If a $40-billion dollar corporate Goliath like P & G continues to pursue its case against the four individuals in Utah, P&G will only prove that it is a corporate bully," said Mohr. "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false. I am confident that these individuals will prevail; P&G is picking on them just because they are Amway distributors."

Earlier this week, Procter & Gamble and its attorneys, the Cincinnati firm of Dinsmore & Shohl, were ordered to stand trial in Michigan federal court on charges that they inappropriately funneled misleading documents to an anti- Amway web site run by an individual who was also a paid consultant.

"Before filing its first lawsuit, P&G praised Amway for its efforts to quash the Satanism rumor," Mohr said. "Since then, P&G has been cynically using Amway as a publicity scapegoat for a rumor they have not been able to stop for almost 20 years, and they let things get personal. We're glad to be vindicated."


Well, if you think in these terms, you might as well consider the entire society a cult ... I mean, the hierarchical structure that the current social order entails may well be seen as a pyramidal scheme on the top of which are those who do nothing but lie and the further down you go the more suckers you find ..

(http://members.impulse.net/~thebob/PyramidA.gif)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: i on August 14, 2006, 03:39:44 PM

I spoke to a friend of mine last week who mentioned his brother in law was a 3L at Roger Williams this year.  When I asked him how he enjoyed the school; this was his bro. in laws exact statement.  "I hate it, my professors are terrible and I will be lucky to to get a job as a call center manager."  Ouch... Granted, this is just one experience; and I personally am not at Harvard or anything ... but seriously ..


If you do not get something in the legal field after earning a JD degree you won't really get a job at a call center .. well, unless you leave your JD off your resume. But as I said, you can always take a paralegal or legal assistant type of job ..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: exponential on August 15, 2006, 01:15:24 AM
Quote

http://www.lawstudentparadise.com/forums/pre-law-discussion/7748-law-schools-avoid-all-costs-4.html#post109866


Afraid to enter the forum!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: yupppie on August 19, 2006, 07:35:42 AM
Why expo?
Title: PRIMERICA
Post by: subprime on August 25, 2006, 05:55:53 PM

Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etcetera).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult."

So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.

Not surprisingly, Amway itself states that it is not a cult:

Quote
- I've heard rumors that Amway is a cult. Is this true?
- No, Amway Corporation is a business and, similar to other large and established companies, has a distinct environment defined by shared business goals. Shared business philosophies should not be misinterpreted as a cult.

As a part of a group of companies whose most recent fiscal year global sales totaled $4.5 billion and which manufacture and distribute quality products and services, Amway offers a business opportunity that is open to all, regardless of religious beliefs, race or gender. Amway really is a microcosm of the world, with more than 3.6 million entrepreneurs worldwide representing nearly every culture, ethnic background, and political and religious belief finding in the Amway business a way to meet their goals.

While unique as individuals, Amway IBOs share a desire to succeed in a business of their own and recognize Amway as an excellent opportunity to achieve their goals. New IBOs receive training, motivation and support in building independent businesses, and are rewarded for their achievements.

A close look at Amway will reveal that any reference to Amway as a cult is incorrect.

In an unrelated issue, Amway has been the subject of a legal fight on charges of spreading rumors about competitor Procter & Gamble's alleged involvement with Satanism. But court records show that such rumors were spread by a small number of independent, indivdual Amway distributors. Moreover, as a lawyer for Amway pointed out, "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false."

Note also that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Amway Corporation is blameless in this matter:

Quote
The Federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held Amway Corporation blameless [additional] in the spread of an old rumor about Procter & Gamble being involved with Satanism. This decision should finally put to rest Procter & Gamble's unjust efforts to hold Amway responsible for the false rumor.

The Court of Appeals, reviewing a decision by a Utah federal district court, soundly rejected P&G's accusations against Amway by ruling: "In the present case, P&G cites no facts to show that Amway told the distributors to spread the [Satanism] message.'' The court also stated that "Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that spreading ... satanic rumors regarding P&G ... was naturally and ordinarily incident to Amway's business." (...)

"If a $40-billion dollar corporate Goliath like P & G continues to pursue its case against the four individuals in Utah, P&G will only prove that it is a corporate bully," said Mohr. "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false. I am confident that these individuals will prevail; P&G is picking on them just because they are Amway distributors."

Earlier this week, Procter & Gamble and its attorneys, the Cincinnati firm of Dinsmore & Shohl, were ordered to stand trial in Michigan federal court on charges that they inappropriately funneled misleading documents to an anti- Amway web site run by an individual who was also a paid consultant.

"Before filing its first lawsuit, P&G praised Amway for its efforts to quash the Satanism rumor," Mohr said. "Since then, P&G has been cynically using Amway as a publicity scapegoat for a rumor they have not been able to stop for almost 20 years, and they let things get personal. We're glad to be vindicated."


(http://ww4.primerica.com/public/graphics/hub.gif)
"Primerica is a key distribution hub for Citigroup, the largest financial services company in the world."
The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 1999

Primerica Financial Services says it engages in direct marketing of financial services, notably term life insurance, long term care insurance, mortgage refinancing, mutual fund investing, and prepaid legal services.

Yet, Primerica exists primarily to gather new recruits rather than provide financial services. If the scholarship program is not taken advantage of, Primerica charges a $199 contribution to state licensing fees which total an average of $600-$700 (depending on state). The recruiting system of some representatives also sucks ass. Although rebuked in Annual Compliance Meetings, certain representatives invite guests to the business opportunity meeting under the impression that they are interviewing for a salaried position.

http://www.primericabuster.com

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff127284.htm

http://fcnforums.christianity.com/Primerica?/m_90041/tm.htm

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=25840

http://www.armydiller.com/financial-scam
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kequals1 on August 25, 2006, 06:24:56 PM
Some pretty interesting posts these ones!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Iprintit on August 28, 2006, 02:13:34 AM
So basically Citibank too is bull ?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: coordinated tie on August 31, 2006, 07:31:20 PM
You bet!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: washthesoap on September 01, 2006, 03:23:40 AM
Pyramid promoters are masters of group psychology. At recruiting meetings they create a frenzied, enthusiastic atmosphere where group pressure and promises of easy money play upon people's greed and fear of missing out on a good deal. It is difficult to resist this kind of appeal unless you recognize that the scheme is rigged against you. 
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: zphiblawyer2b on September 02, 2006, 06:49:21 PM
Well, law school is what you make it.  You can go to a T1 school and score poorly, not network, nor create opportunities for yourself or you can go to a T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys, bust your butt, and get the jobs.  It is your choice of what you do after law school.  If you plan for what you want to do, then you can do it regardless of the school.  Both T1 schools and T4 schools have their faults.  It can be argued the same for big firm/small firm or public/private sector.  I was in the legal field for years before going to law school.  I was fortunate to work downtown DC.  I gained experience at a small firm and a large national firm.  In both firms, the attorneys went to schools in all tiers.  I hate to see people talk about things that they dont know anything about.  Be realistic and understand that people make choices based upon their needs; not anyone elses. 
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: johnnylongtorso on September 03, 2006, 03:13:56 AM
Well, law school is what you make it.  You can go to a T1 school and score poorly, not network, nor create opportunities for yourself or you can go to a T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys, bust your butt, and get the jobs.  It is your choice of what you do after law school.  If you plan for what you want to do, then you can do it regardless of the school.  Both T1 schools and T4 schools have their faults.  It can be argued the same for big firm/small firm or public/private sector.  I was in the legal field for years before going to law school.  I was fortunate to work downtown DC.  I gained experience at a small firm and a large national firm.  In both firms, the attorneys went to schools in all tiers.  I hate to see people talk about things that they dont know anything about.  Be realistic and understand that people make choices based upon their needs; not anyone elses. 

A T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys?  I doubt you're going to find any of those.  Being known to produce crap attorneys (or grads who can't pass the bar at all) is part of how a school winds up in the fourth tier.

I'd also be interested in hearing what the "faults" of T1 schools, relative to T4s, are.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: morpheme on September 12, 2006, 09:27:23 PM
 
A T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys? I doubt you're going to find any of those.  Being known to produce crap attorneys (or grads who can't pass the bar at all) is part of how a school winds up in the fourth tier.


Well, there will be like 5 out of 340 graduates who'll go to big law ..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: johns259 on September 12, 2006, 09:38:27 PM
Well, law school is what you make it.  You can go to a T1 school and score poorly, not network, nor create opportunities for yourself or you can go to a T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys, bust your butt, and get the jobs.  It is your choice of what you do after law school.  If you plan for what you want to do, then you can do it regardless of the school.  Both T1 schools and T4 schools have their faults.  It can be argued the same for big firm/small firm or public/private sector.  I was in the legal field for years before going to law school.  I was fortunate to work downtown DC.  I gained experience at a small firm and a large national firm.  In both firms, the attorneys went to schools in all tiers.  I hate to see people talk about things that they dont know anything about.  Be realistic and understand that people make choices based upon their needs; not anyone elses. 

I'd also be interested in hearing what the "faults" of T1 schools, relative to T4s, are.

Likely faults of T1 schools relative to T4s?

I've found that it really sucks having to choose between jobs.
Title: Re: Amway
Post by: c a t a l i n a on September 13, 2006, 04:09:19 AM

Well, if you think in these terms, you might as well consider the entire society a cult ... I mean, the hierarchical structure that the current social order entails may well be seen as a pyramidal scheme on the top of which are those who do nothing but lie and the further down you go the more suckers you find ..

(http://members.impulse.net/~thebob/PyramidA.gif)


Very intriguing posts, r e g g i e!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: melissa on September 13, 2006, 03:49:44 PM
Indeed, c a t a l i n a!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: doesntdothereading on September 15, 2006, 02:37:57 PM

Well, there will be like 5 out of 340 graduates who'll go to big law ..


You mean 5% of 340 graduates?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: johnnylongtorso on September 15, 2006, 06:19:58 PM

Well, there will be like 5 out of 340 graduates who'll go to big law ..


You mean 5% of 340 graduates?

That's if they're lucky.
Title: THE COLLAPSE OF VERTICALLY STRUCTURED INSTITUTIONS
Post by: stunningrevelations on September 23, 2006, 10:19:40 PM

Well, if you think in these terms, you might as well consider the entire society a cult ... I mean, the hierarchical structure that the current social order entails may well be seen as a pyramidal scheme on the top of which are those who do nothing but lie and the further down you go the more suckers you find ..

(http://members.impulse.net/~thebob/PyramidA.gif)


In case anyone here has not noticed, modern society is collapsing. Traditional, vertically-structured social systems are eroding, their places being taken by horizontal networks of autonomous individuals and associations. The pyramid -- with its top-down, command-and-control systems of centralized authority -- has been the dominant social organization model in Western society since at least the time of Plato. The underlying assumption of pyramidal systems is that social order can be realized only if decision-making is centralized within established institutions -- institutions through which the exercise of unilaterally-directed authority can channel the turbulent forces of human society to productive and harmonious ends.

The pyramidal model has long been reinforced by Isaac Newton's reductionist and mechanistic model of the universe. This view of nature is premised on the idea that all matter consists of fundamental building blocks -- the atom being the preferred explanation -- held together, and their behavior regulated, by discernible "laws" (e.g., laws of motion, gravity, light, thermodynamics, etc.). Implicit in such a model is the idea that nature is structured in relatively simple patterns capable of calculation which can be accurately identified and measured. Because of the presumption of certainty inherent in such a model, it has long been an established article of faith that, given sufficient information, it is possible for human beings to predict the consequences of events in both our physical and social worlds. The pyramidal model is the one upon which institutions operate, be they business corporations, hierarchical religions, most school systems, or the state. In a chain-of-command fashion, decision-making authority "trickles down" from institutional leaders to the "rank-and-file" members at different levels in the hierarchy. Corporate managers; classroom teachers; legislators, judges, prime ministers and presidents; and ecclesiastical officials, may function in different settings, but each operates on the same premise of establishing order through the exercise of their will over others. No clearer statement of the pyramidal premise has been uttered, in recent decades, than by former U.S. Secretary of Defense and industrial leader, Robert McNamara, who said "[v]ital decision-making, particularly in policy matters, must remain at the top. This is partly, though not completely, what the top is for."

Implicit in the pyramidal model is the assumption that the institution involved is its own reason for being. What might have begun as a flexible, organizational tool allowing individuals to cooperate for the production of life-sustaining values, comes to be regarded as an end in itself. The successes that were facilitated through the use of organizational machinery tend to produce, in our minds, a dependency upon the system, rather than upon the creative and resilient processes that led us to create this tool for cooperation. With the support of those who have become the leaders, we come to endow the organization with a need for permanency. In this way the organization gets turned into an institution, its own raison d'être. So constituted, the institution resists the processes of adaptation necessary to a creative system, and develops preferences for stability, security, and a resistance to change. Instead of adapting itself to the fluctuations of an inconstant environment, it seeks to force its environment to adapt to its needs for certainty and permanence. In their efforts to stabilize and preserve their positions, institutions have had to call upon the state to establish -- and enforce -- standards of both conduct and goods and services to which others must conform. Because the state is an institution that enjoys a monopoly on the use of violence within a given geographic area, its powers become essential to the regularization of human behavior. Such efforts on behalf of stabilized uniformity are brought about and reinforced through standardized thinking, in which men and women learn to value security above individual liberty. American politics is firmly grounded in the worship of "security:" social security, job security, homeland security, airport security, and the security of national borders, being just a few examples. Lest the public discover what its government has been up to, efforts to reveal such knowledge are routinely repressed in the name of national security.

Part of the popular mindset that permits the state to assume its role of monopolistic authority in a vertically-structured power system, is the belief that political officials possess a level of knowledge -- approaching omniscience -- allowing them to foresee conditions, assess the factors influencing the future, and to formulate programs and policies that will lead to predictably satisfactory ends. This is an illusion that can be traced back to Plato's "Republic," and his "philosopher kings." Government-directed economic and social planning proceeds from this assumption, a belief empirically destroyed by the 20th century failure of systems of state planning. The problems created by institutionalization center on the fact that any system must constantly renew itself if it is to survive. This is true for an individual, an organization, or a civilization. All systems are subject to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropic principle that a closed system will move from a state of order to disorder. But human beings and our social systems are open -- not closed systems -- meaning that they can resist entropy, at least temporarily, by ingesting energy from our environments. For any system to remain vibrant, it must constantly renew itself in a constantly changing universe. But such renewal can occur only by the system undergoing change, moving in the direction of a more orderly condition. Such demands run counter to institutional demands for stability, security, and equilibrium.

In their efforts to create and structure order, institutions produce the rigidity that interferes with change and, paradoxically, generate disorder that can lead to the entropic death not only of individual systems, but entire civilizations. Efforts to structure and restrain the processes by which systems produce the values upon which a civilization depends, can produce dysfunctional consequences. A number of historians have emphasized how the processes of institutionalization, standardization, and other practices designed to enforce organizational stability, contribute to the decline of civilizations. A creative, vibrant civilization, in other words, is dynamic, not stable; adaptive to change, not burdened by equilibrium. It is characterized not by those who seek to preserve what they have, but by those who seek to produce what their minds tell them they can have. Individual liberty abounds in such a society, as men and women advance new ideas, new technologies, and new practices in pursuit of their varied self-interests.

For a number of reasons, the top-down model of social order now finds itself in retreat.

One cause has been an awareness of the growing inefficacy of large institutions to remain capable of producing the values upon which a society depends for its well-being. Because of their size and bureaucratic sluggishness, institutions tend to become less adaptable to the constancies of change inherent in all living systems. Life is a continuing process of making adjustments and creative responses in a world too complex to be predictable. But institutions insist not only upon their illusions of predictability, but their systems of control by which they imagine they can control the world. This is why institutions have always aligned themselves with the forces of state power, in order to compel the rest of nature -- particularly mankind -- to conform to their interests. But power wars against life, for power seeks to force life to become what it does not choose to be. Because life expresses itself as autonomous and spontaneous individual activity, it is inextricably dependent upon individual liberty. Liberty is the condition in which individuals -- and the societies in which they live -- can remain resilient and creative, adaptive to changing conditions.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: stunningrevelations on September 23, 2006, 10:25:17 PM
Furthermore, the nation-state -- the hallmark of vertically-structured pyramidal systems -- is in decline. There has been a drastic failure of expectations that the state generates social and economic order. 20th century state-conducted wars and genocides killed some 200 million people; state systems of economic planning have produced starvation, impoverishment, and death; shortages of goods and services; unemployment; inflation; and depressions. The promises of individual liberty to be protected by the state have been negated by expanded police states, concentration camps and gulags, torture, censorship, surveillance of the lives of people, and widespread forms of police brutality. The expectation that the state would protect private property has wilted in the face of the burden of taxation, government regulation of land usage, and the powers of eminent domain. There is a growing awareness that "the system" simply doesn't work as most people expect it to work. The death-rattle of the nation-state reverberates throughout the world. The "Iron Curtain" behemoth that served as our bogeyman following World War II, began to erode in the 1960s, with Yugoslavia leading the way. Later on, the surviving Soviet Union broke up into 15 independent nations. Yugoslavia no longer exists, its erstwhile territory subdivided into 6 separate nations. Czechoslovakia -- having broken away from the Soviet Union -- has since decentralized into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The vulnerability of the centralized, nation-state model should have become evident to people following the collapse of the British and French empires. George W. Bush's fatuous announcement of the beginnings of an "American Empire" -- with himself as "Emperor" -- should have been greeted with the same disbelief had Henry Ford announced, in 1900, his intentions to invest in the horse and buggy industry! Secession movements abound throughout the world, with Northern Ireland, Quebec, Tibet, and Palestine the more prominent examples. Basque separatism in Spain, and numerous state and local secession efforts in the United States, are but a few examples of large numbers of people seeking to withdraw from dominant nation-state systems. In America, a number of states and cities are defying federal restrictions on the medical use of marijuana and the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. At the same time, people are increasingly identifying themselves with and organizing their lives around various abstractions that transcend nation-state boundaries. Religion, ethnicity, lifestyles, race -- even membership in urban gangs -- are some of the categories by which people identify themselves. The Internet is helping to dissolve political boundaries in favor of philosophical, economic, and other criteria by which individuals create cyber-communities with like-minded persons throughout the world.

But the decentralization process runs much deeper than this. Alternative schools and health care practices continue to draw support away from institutionalized educational, medical, and pharmaceutical interests. The decentralization of management in business organizations -- with increased decision-making in the hands of employees -- has been going on for over 50 years. Manufacturing is increasingly being done in smaller, more resilient firms. Lawyers are increasingly turning to alternative methods of resolving disputes, including arbitration and what is emerging as "holistic" or "collaborative" law practice. At the same time, there has been increasing interest in the use of "jury nullification," by which members of a jury ignore the instructions they receive from a judge and adopt their own legal standards for guilt or innocence. The Grameen banks of Bangladesh have loaned some $6 billion to four million impoverished individuals -- 96% of whom are women -- with no collateral other than the promises of a handful of their fellow villagers to repay the loan. Interest-free loans are even extended to beggars. The bank has a 98% repayment record, but refuses to make use of the courts for the few bad debts or defaults.

The Internet, cell-phones, fax machines, iPods, websites and blog sites decentralize the flow of information among people. It has been estimated that there are some 22 million blog sites in existence throughout the world. The established news media is firmly challenged by technologies that allow anyone to become a news source. Authors need no longer rely on large publishing houses, with "publishing on demand" becoming a viable alternative. The inexpensive availability of video cameras has spawned the widespread growth of documentary film-making. Stock- and commodity-market investors control their own purchases through computers. One expression of a politically-unrestrained marketplace, eBay, provides a means for people to buy and sell virtually anything through Internet transactions. At the same time, PayPal is available as an alternative method for paying for goods and services in a horizontally-connected world. The Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, is a continually updated system that allows visitors to edit subject matter content. This same sort of system is used by digg.com, a website through which viewers vote on posted news stories, thus giving news consumers more power over what reports are carried. On a more frivolous level, flash mobs employ cell phones and the Internet in organizing total strangers to participate in some pointless act and then disband. One of the more interesting phenomena is the practice of communities reaching objectives through consensus (i.e., where everyone must agree with a proposed undertaking). Caspar, California -- an unincorporated town of some 2,000 people occupying 12 square miles of territory -- is one town in which community decisions are made through a process of "deliberating until we can find a way that satisfies all." Like Amish communities, Caspar confirms the benefits deriving from smaller, face-to-face associations. This same consensus-seeking process exists in Somalia. This list goes on and on, each week bringing additional examples of informal systems through which people communicate and exchange with one another.

The most impressive and dynamic example of a decentralized, horizontally-networked social system remains, of course, a free marketplace. (I mean "marketplace," here, in clear contrast with the "business system," two concepts that rarely share similar methods. If one could rid the world of the socialist practices fostered by members of the business community, we would probably have little need for conferences such as this!) On a grimmer note, we have learned in recent decades that nation-states no longer enjoy monopolies in their conduct of wars: guerilla tactics, suicide attacks, and insurgencies have turned war, itself, into a decentralized undertaking. What makes so-called "terrorist" groups so difficult to identify and deal with is their decentralized, non-hierarchical form of organization. Recall how 19 men, armed only with box-cutter knives, were able to attack the World Trade Center buildings and precipitate the insanity the United States now wages against innocent people. Nor can we overlook the role that fax machines, cell phones, and the Internet play in helping to organize and direct popular demonstrations against governmental programs and practices throughout the world.

How does the decentralization of social systems represent a threat to the state? Because government enjoys a monopoly on the use of force, unless there is some way to limit the scope of its authority, the state need not confront any impediment to the fulfillment of its will. The illusion has long existed -- and been proven fallacious by the American experiment with a written constitution -- that such authority can be confined in some definitive manner. The problem is that efforts to create a "limited government" necessarily involve the use of abstract concepts -- such as "reasonableness," "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and other words. The same problem exists with respect to efforts to protect individual liberties via a "bill of rights" or other provisions. What is "speech," "due process of law," a "taking of property," or a "speedy trial?" As Alfred Korzybski reminds us, "words" -- being abstractions -- can never equate with what those words attempt to describe. In Korzybski's now classic phrase, "the map is not the territory," we learn that, while words can be defined through the use of other words, their application to any given situation is always subject to interpretation.

But who is to interpret the meaning of the words that supposedly limit state power and protect individual liberties? With the state's monopoly on the use of force, it insists upon making such interpretations. It should surprise no one to discover that the state -- like any other self-interested body -- will interpret the scope of its authority according to what is in its interests. Accordingly, the judiciary in America -- which long ago usurped this power in construing governmental authority under the Constitution -- has given very broad interpretations to governmental authority, and very narrow definitions to constitutional restrictions on such authority. As we are learning in America, there is no way that a constitution can ever prevent the accumulation of power, if enough people support such efforts. As a monopolist, the state is unwilling to tolerate alternative forms of social organization that conflict with -- and cannot be coopted to -- its interests. By definition, a monopolist requires a vertically-structured social arrangement, devoid of competitive systems. A horizontally-based system is, by its nature, one in which social behavior is decentralized throughout society, with decision-making diffused among the people comprising it.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: stunningrevelations on September 23, 2006, 10:36:36 PM
In order to understand the distinction between vertically and horizontally modeled social systems, resort could be made to solid geometry. The pyramid of the state-dominated society might be contrasted with a sphere. There is no preferred position to be found on the surface of a sphere; no favored location from which power could either accumulate or flow. Spheres have neither "tops" nor "bottoms," but multilateral connections. Faith in pyramidally-structured, vertically-imposed societal order is in the process of being demolished by a more sophisticated understanding of the dynamics of complexity. Technology has generated its own science in the study of "chaos." A primary lesson in this emerging field of inquiry is that complex systems are too varied in terms of their structure and origins to be capable of our generating predictable outcomes. As computer-generated fractals are making us aware, what our limited vision causes us to see as disordered turbulence contains hidden regularities. These experiences are causing many of us to understand that what we see as disorder may be nothing more than an order whose patterns we have not yet identified. The study of chaos is beginning to reveal the integrated complexity of the universe, and the processes by which such complexity generates order.

Perhaps chaos theory will prove to be another example of Thomas Kuhn's thesis -- drawn from his study of the nature of scientific revolutions -- that new theories are the products of crises that arise when existing theories are no longer adequate to explain a variety of phenomena. The collapse of the vertical -- with its accompanying institutional systems -- may be replaced by the horizontal. While complex systems are determined, their course of conduct is unavoidably unpredictable. This seeming dilemma leads some to conclude that unpredictability can be overcome by the acquisition of more information. But this is not the case. Predictability depends upon an awareness of all the factors that bear upon the event in question -- what chaos scientists call a "sensitive dependence upon initial conditions." That is, one must know, in advance, the identity and the degree of influence of every factor operating upon a system. Such information is impossible to amass for a number of reasons:

- as we have already seen, "words" are abstractions, meaning that there will always be an information loss between the word, and what it is the word is used to describe;
- our knowledge of the world is not only abstract, but subjective in nature. We translate our world by reference to our mental constructs -- drawn from our limited and unique prior experiences -- which makes our understanding inherently different from the world itself;
- the logistical problem of marshaling all relevant information. Because our senses can process only a tiny fraction of the reality to which they are exposed, we are biologically incapable of even perceiving all the factors acting upon events in our lives. Our capacities for synthesizing all of the information that we do perceive is limited by our tendencies to experience an information overload that can shut down our minds;
- the role that Werner Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" plays in efforts to observe events. When we understand how and why "the observer is the observed," we get a glimpse into how our act of looking at or studying something affects what it is we are seeing;
- in an age of the Internet, cell-phones, and fax machines, the speed with which information is transmitted throughout the world is often too spontaneous and interconnected for the cumbersome, bureaucratic, conservative, and reactive nature of institutions to make effective responses to changes. As we saw in the government's failed response to flooding in New Orleans, the information upon which the state relies is often outdated by the time it takes action. The more informal processes of the marketplace were, however, very quick to respond.

The study of chaos and complexity is helping us understand why vertically-structured systems tend to be so dysfunctional, while horizontally-networked systems are more effective. There are powerful dynamics within systems that confirm the orderly nature of chaos. In contrast with the presumed simple structuring of nature inherent in the traditional, mechanistic model of the universe, the study of chaos reveals the integrated complexity of nature. Such complexity spontaneously generates order through conditions of non-equilibrium and instability that permit systems to renew themselves. Such inquiries are also providing evidence of the harmony in apparent contradictions -- such as one sees in Niels Bohr's "complementarity principle" [e.g., "wave/particle duality"]. Extending this insight into the social realm, there is an increased awareness of the interconnected nature of both "freedom" and "order" in our lives. Institutional efforts – particularly through the coercive powers of the state – to create structured equilibrium conditions necessarily restrain the freedom that generates the creative, negentropic processes needed for the health of any system.

The model that seems best able to describe a horizontally-networked society is found in the technology of holography. Without getting too enmeshed in the mechanics of the process, holography is a system that permits the creation of three-dimensional images in which a laser beam is split into "reference" and "object" beams. In the interplay between the "object" and "reference" beams, a photographic negative is produced. Unlike the negative of a standard camera, however -- in which the photographed object is clearly presented in negative form -- the holographic negative consists of an amorphous distribution of particles. What is most interesting is this: if you were to reproduce only a small portion of the negative taken from a standard camera, you would only get the image in that section of the negative. But if you were to run a laser through any portion of the holographic negative, the entire content of the negative is reproduced! The entire message, in other words, is distributed throughout the negative. Thus the word "hologram," which, in Greek, means "whole message."

The analogy to social systems works this way: whereas the pyramidal model is premised on top-down, unilaterally-directed authority, the holographic model presumes a multilateral, interwoven system largely devoid of "tops" and "bottoms." Analogies to the pointillistic art style of Seurat, or photographs in a newspaper also come to mind: in each, the picture is seen as only the composite of individual dots of paint on a canvas or ink on a page. The reality of the pictures is found only in the interconnectedness of the dots. Without the individualized dots, there is no picture. The model upon which pyramidal systems are grounded, on the other hand, is that the institutional entity -- e.g., the corporation, or the state -- is the fundamental reality, with individuals functioning as little more than subservient, fungible units. A holographic society, by contrast, is one in which both the purpose and the authority for decision-making is distributed throughout the social system. The distinction between a corporate-serving economic system, and a laissez-faire market system should come to mind.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: stunningrevelations on September 23, 2006, 10:37:12 PM
What are the institutional dynamics working against this holographic model? The answer is to be found in exploring the conditions necessary for the health of a vibrant system, be it an individual organism, a business enterprise, or a civilization. We are taught to think of a great civilization in terms of the things it has produced: ideas; technologies; great music and other art; beautiful buildings and monuments; or military conquests and complicated systems of social control. Such an approach, however, is too focused upon nouns, defining greatness by reference to the things that have been created by people living within such a civilization. It is more important to think of greatness in terms of verbs, (i.e., the processes that foster creativity). Has Western civilization been great because of the works of Michelangelo, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Goethe, Edison, Einstein, and others -- as well as the life-enhancing products of industrialization -- or because of the conditions in which such creativity could take place?

This is the kind of question that reminds us just how unpredictable complex systems are. What were the factors that caused the Renaissance to arise in Florence rather than Copenhagen; or the Industrial Revolution to be centered in Manchester instead of Paris? And lest we fear the uncertainties of a world in which the vertical collapses into the horizontal, let us remember that these periods of immense spiritual and material creativity replaced long-established social systems. When my wife and I first visited Prague a few years ago, I was entranced by a setting in which we found ourselves. We were sitting in an outdoor restaurant at one end of a huge square, enjoying a large glass of Czech beer. At the opposite end of this square stands the Old Town Hall, from whose third floor window, in 1483, government officials were thrown by angry citizens. At the other end -- perpendicular to where we were sitting -- was an apartment building in which Albert Einstein, Franz Kafka, and Franz Werfel used to hold philosophic discussions. If there is such a thing as a "power of place," this was it, and I marveled at whatever the conditions were that brought all of these events together -- albeit at different times -- on this square.

The institutional order -- which enjoys a state-enforced power over the lives of hundreds of millions of people -- is not about to allow decentralizing tendencies to liberate their conscripts. There is simply too much power -- and, ultimately, money -- at stake. I believe that the current "war on terror" is a desperate effort on the part of the state to forcibly resist decentralizing processes that threaten the established order. I prefer to think of this campaign as a "War for the Preservation of Institutional Hierarchies," or simply a "War for the Status Quo." The nation-state is fighting for its very existence against the decentralized life forces by which human beings sustain themselves. The intensity of the state's campaign to force human beings back into the collective herd reflects the strength of centrifugal forces. As vertical structures erode in favor of horizontal interconnectedness, the state tries to shore up the collapsing foundations of a centrally-managed society with practices of the most draconian reach. People held in secret prisons without trial or even formal charges being filed against them; the use of torture; expanded police powers, including the authority of government agents to secretly enter private homes without notice to the owners; airport luggage, clothing, and body searches; the detailed surveillance of people's business, medical, and book-reading records, as well as their computer and telephone transactions; and ongoing efforts to disarm the public through illegalizing gun ownership, are some of the more apparent tactics.

In an exaggerated effort to breathe life into a dying corpse, statists endeavor to micro-regulate details of the lives of people: how they raise their children and treat their pets; their personal safety, smoking, sexual, and eating habits -- including the current campaigns against obesity; and efforts to control expressions of anger, hatred, and politically-incorrect attitudes. To monitor and locate its conscripts, the state has installed closed-circuit cameras throughout cities; while the use of RFID chips in clothing and other products, along with national identity cards, are being used to track people's movements. The European Union -- an undertaking fostered by members of the political establishment to centralize power, but rejected in countries where the public has been allowed to vote on the system --regulates such details of life as the size and shape of bananas and meatballs; whether window-washers may stand on step-ladders; and whether the produce in grocery stores may be sold in terms of pounds or kilos. But just as the EU seems to have little future, these varied efforts to reinvigorate the collapsing pyramid will not withstand the decentralizing currents. The future of the world, I believe, lies in the increased balkanization -- not the uniting -- of nations.

Just how desperate the state is to increase its powers over a rapidly decentralizing society, was reflected in the enactment of the Patriot Act in America. Members of Congress -- the representatives of the institutional apparatus -- did not even bother reading the draconian details of this measure. In fact, the draft of this bill had not even been completed at the time Congress voted for it! It was sufficient that the state masters wanted such enhanced powers over people. The political system has become like a chicken that has just had its head chopped off: it continues to flail about in a noisy display, leaving blood in its trail and making a mess of everything with which it comes into contact. While its wild, flapping around in energized reaction may give the appearance of liveliness, its fate has already been determined.

Just as a heliocentric model arose when the geocentric model could no longer explain planetary behavior, the holographic model of social systems may be on the verge of replacing a dying pyramidal paradigm that is incapable of accommodating the organizational needs of free and productive people in a changing world. Fewer and fewer people believe in this antiquated system anymore. I suspect that the more perceptive statists know that their pyramidal world -- which political violence vainly struggles to hold together -- is collapsing into horizontal networks of autonomous people. Even they may be on the verge of discovering that such decentralizing processes will continue; that there is nothing anyone in authority can do to reverse the trend; and that the only humane response open to them is to do what is implicit in the concept of liberty: to get out of the way of others as they join with their neighbors in the pursuit of their respective interests!

Butler Shaffer is a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, USA where he teaches courses in Legal Reasoning and Property -- and conducts a seminar on Informal Systems of Order. He is author of "Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats To Peace and Human Survival"; and "In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918-1938"
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: così fan tutte on September 24, 2006, 06:26:37 PM
Awesome speech, printing it out already
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: victorase on September 25, 2006, 01:28:44 AM

In order to understand the distinction between vertically and horizontally modeled social systems, resort could be made to solid geometry. The pyramid of the state-dominated society might be contrasted with a sphere. There is no preferred position to be found on the surface of a sphere; no favored location from which power could either accumulate or flow. Spheres have neither "tops" nor "bottoms," but multilateral connections. Faith in pyramidally-structured, vertically-imposed societal order is in the process of being demolished by a more sophisticated understanding of the dynamics of complexity.
 

So now on we're going to think in these terms I guess,

(http://www.id.iit.edu/profile/gallery/design_for_BoP/images/pyramid.jpg)

v

(http://vmm.math.uci.edu/3D-XplorMath/Surface/sphere/sphere.png)



Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: 980eQ on September 25, 2006, 09:44:34 PM
I havent dropped a take on this yet. Dude, if you are at a T1, good for you... now work hard and network.. if you are at a T4, work hard and network... while the t4 guy may have to take a different trip around the mountain than the T1, he can still get to some great places with his/her education. I think its the person that makes the degree work for you... not the other way around.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: newkidintown on September 26, 2006, 02:39:42 PM

On a grimmer note, we have learned in recent decades that nation-states no longer enjoy monopolies in their conduct of wars: guerilla tactics, suicide attacks, and insurgencies have turned war, itself, into a decentralized undertaking. What makes so-called "terrorist" groups so difficult to identify and deal with is their decentralized, non-hierarchical form of organization. Recall how 19 men, armed only with box-cutter knives, were able to attack the World Trade Center buildings and precipitate the insanity the United States now wages against innocent people.


"Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy," by John Arquilla and David F. Ronfeldt examines the new spectrum of conflict emerging in the wake of the information revolution. Netwar includes conflicts waged, on the one hand, by terrorists, criminals, gangs, and ethnic extremists; and by civil-society activists (such as cyber activists or WTO protestors) on the other. What distinguishes netwar is the networked organizational structure of its practitioners -- with many groups actually being leaderless -- and their quickness in coming together in swarming attacks. Completed shortly before terrorists attacked New York and Washington, the volume includes an Afterword analyzing the Attack on America. The events of September 11, 2001, tragically reinforced Arquilla and Ronfeldt's conclusion that in order to confront this new type of conflict, it is crucial for governments, military, and law enforcement to begin networking themselves.

"Just as a half century ago, researchers at RAND sought to understand the profound changes in strategy brought about by nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles," says Brian Michael Jenkins, one of the world's foremost experts on terrorism and crime, "Arquilla and Ronfeldt explore the strategic implications of new information technologies in the latest installment of their seminal work ... Networks and Netwars obliges us to think in new ways." In Networks and Netwars, the editors and their colleagues examine the major instances of netwar that have occurred over the past several years -- from Osama bin Laden's networked terrorists to the Battle of Seattle's social activists -- and find, among other things, that netwars have generally been successful from the protagonists' perspective. The authors also find that, despite their diversity, all networks built for waging netwar may be analyzed in terms of a common analytic framework. There are 5 critical levels of theory and practice: the technological, social, narrative, organizational, and doctrinal levels. A netwar actor must get all 5 right to be fully effective. The most potent netwarriors will not only be highly networked and have the capacity for mounting "swarming" attacks, they will also be held together by strong social ties, have secure communications technologies, and project a common "story" about why they are together and what they need to do. Like Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda, these are the most serious adversaries. But even those networks that are weak on some levels may pose stiff challenges to their nation-state adversaries.

"A particular challenge for the cumbersome American bureaucracy will be to encourage deep, all-channel networking among the military, law enforcement, and intelligence elements whose collaboration is crucial for achieving success," Arquilla and Ronfeldt explain in the Afterword. "U.S. agencies have been headed in this direction for years-in the areas of counter-narcotics as well as counterterrorism -- but interagency rivalries and distrust have too often slowed progress." Writers who focus on the technological aspects of netwar often miss the point. As the editors point out, "At its heart, Netwar is far more about organization and doctrine than it is about technology. The outcomes of current and future netwars are bound to confirm this." Nathan Gardels, editor of New Perspectives Quarterly, and author of The Changing Global Order, says "Arquilla and Ronfeldt are a rare breed: strategic thinkers of the information age. In Networks and Netwars they grasp an emerging reality still lost on those preoccupied with the geostrategic balance of power: War in the future will be waged by leaderless networks that can come together quickly out of cyberspace to 'swarm' an opponent. Like few others, they recognize that the flipside of the celebrated global civil society born of the Internet is the 'uncivil society' of terrorists and criminals who will use the same means to spread havoc and instability."

"Rushing into an increasingly complex world, we need ways to probe the road ahead, to find the quicksand and pitfalls before falling in," says David Brin, author of "The Postman, Earth, and The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?" "Arquilla and Ronfeldt have taken on this hard task, searching for technological threats to a society that has grown reliant on data-based infrastructure ... In this collection of cogent articles, by experts in the field of netwar, they clarify some of the dangers that await us-and reveal possible ways to avoid them. It's obviously an important and seminal work. I especially like their analysis of the key features that enable groups to be effective in this new arena of conflict."
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: newkidintown on September 26, 2006, 02:49:38 PM
As the information revolution deepens, the conduct and outcome of conflicts increasingly depend on information and communications. More than ever before, conflicts revolve around "knowledge" and the use of "soft power." Adversaries are learning to emphasize "information operations" and "perception management" -- that is, media-oriented measures that aim to attract or disorient rather than coerce, and that affects how secure a society, a military or other actor feels about its knowledge of itself and of its adversaries. Psychological disruption may become as important goal as physical destruction.

Back in 1992, while first wondering about such propositions and writing about cyberwar as a looming mode of military conflict, it was thought it would be a good idea to have a parallel concept about information-age conflict at the less military, low-intensity, more social end of the spectrum. The term coined was netwar, largely because it resonated with the surety that the information revolution favored the rise of network forms of organization, doctrine and strategy. Through netwar, numerous dispersed small groups using the latest communications technologies could act conjointly across great distances. Actors as diverse as transnational terrorists, criminals and even radical activists. Some were already moving from hierarchical to new information-age network designs. Computerized aggression waged via stand-off attacks in cyberspace? Or just a trendy synonym for infowar, information operations, "strategic information warfare," Internet war, "hacktivism," cyberterrorism, "cybotage"? 

Protagonists likely to consist of dispersed organizations, small groups and individuals who communicate, coordinate and conduct their campaigns in an internetted manner, often without a precise central command. It appears that netwar differs from modes of conflict and crime in which the protagonists prefer to develop formal, stand-alone, hierarchical organizations, doctrines and strategies as in past efforts, for example, to build centralized movements along Leninist lines. Thus, for example, netwar is about the Zapatistas more than the Fidelistas, Hamas more than the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the American Christian Patriot movement more than the Ku Klux Klan, and the Asian Triads more than the Cosa Nostra.

(http://www.fathom.com/course/21701735/networks.jpg)

- The chain or line network, as in a smuggling chain where people, goods or information move along a line of separated contacts, and where end-to-end communication must travel through the intermediate nodes.

- The hub, star, or wheel network, as in a franchise or a cartel where a set of actors are tied to a central (but not hierarchical) node or actor, and must go through that node to communicate and coordinate with each other.

- The all-channel or full-matrix network, as in a collaborative network of militant peace groups where everybody is connected to everybody else.

Each node in the diagrams may refer to an individual, a group, an organization, part of a group or organization, or even a state. The nodes may be large or small, tightly or loosely coupled, and inclusive or exclusive in membership. They may be segmentary or specialized -- that is, they may look alike and engage in similar activities, or they may undertake a division of labor based on specialization. The boundaries of the network, or of any node included in it, may be well-defined or blurred and porous in relation to the outside environment. Many variations are possible. Of the three network types, the all-channel has been the most difficult to organize and sustain, partly because it may require dense communications. But it is the type that gives the network form its new, high potential for collaborative undertakings and that is gaining new strength from the information revolution. Pictorially, an all-channel netwar actor resembles a geodesic "Bucky ball" (named for Buckminster Fuller); it does not look like a pyramid. The organizational design is flat. gle, central leadership, command or headquarters -- no precise heart or head that can be targeted. The network as a whole (but not necessarily each node) has little to no hierarchy; there may be multiple leaders. Decision-making and operations are decentralized, allowing for local initiative and autonomy. Thus the design may sometimes appear acephalous (headless), and at other times polycephalous (Hydra-headed)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: underthebelt on September 26, 2006, 03:00:33 PM

In order to understand the distinction between vertically and horizontally modeled social systems, resort could be made to solid geometry. The pyramid of the state-dominated society might be contrasted with a sphere. There is no preferred position to be found on the surface of a sphere; no favored location from which power could either accumulate or flow. Spheres have neither "tops" nor "bottoms," but multilateral connections. Faith in pyramidally-structured, vertically-imposed societal order is in the process of being demolished by a more sophisticated understanding of the dynamics of complexity.
 

Another metaphor used to illustrate the structure of horizontal networks is that of the rhizome: a subterranean plant growth process involving propagation through the horizontal development of the plant stem.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Zingiber_officinale01.jpg)

This horizontal elaboration of a multiplicity of underground roots and above ground stems is juxtaposed to more familiar arboreal processes associated with the vertical, centralized growth of trees. Through the metaphor of the rhizome are explored the characteristics one finds, or might expect to find, in horizontally linked human interactions -- whether of small-scale social groups or large-scale social movements.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: everytwoweeks on September 27, 2006, 03:07:00 PM

(http://www.fathom.com/course/21701735/networks.jpg)


I like best the middle one ..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Spritz!Spritz! on September 28, 2006, 08:40:23 AM

(http://www.fathom.com/course/21701735/networks.jpg)


I like best the middle one ..

the one on the right is also known as the All-satan network
Title: Stupid Nation?
Post by: keith on September 28, 2006, 08:16:56 PM

What you are failing to realize is that the United States has a 33% illiteracy rate.


There is a game played all over the world. In some places — Canada and the UK spring to mind — it's even achieved the status of a sport. In the ultimate manifestation of this sport, smartly dressed TV presenters are shipped over to the United States, microphones in hand. They descend upon the trailer parks, the high schools, the universities, and the lower-income city neighborhhoods, for candid, deliberately cruel interviews about global politics, foreign cultures, evolution, geography—anything that will elicit blank stares from their marks. The message is abundantly clear: Americans, as we all know, are hilariously stupid.

(http://adbusters.org/blogs/images/stories/the_front/usa_1.jpg)

A poll conducted in mid-March by ABC News would seem to bear this out, revealing that roughly 56% of Americans still think that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war began. Of course, everyone else seems to know that no WMDs have ever been found. So why have 170,000,000 or so Americans failed to absorb such a widely reported, and seemingly important, tidbit of information?

Much fuss has been made by academics, cultural pundits, and other assorted smart alecks about the legendary anti-intellectualism of American culture. They just don't trust deep thinkers, the story goes. They think that intelligence equals pretense. They want their leaders to be regular folk, not an elite cabal of learned statesmen. But there's also a flipside to this anti-intellectualism story, in which Americans are supposed to appreciate practical thinkers — inventors, engineers, people who do something tangible with their intelligence. And isn't politics, after all, really about practical, everyday issues, about getting things done? And isn't the existence, or non-existence, of WMDs a concrete issue that damn near anybody can sink their teeth into?

Whether or not Americans are any more or any less prone to anti-intellectualism is not really at the heart of the issue. Because the key problem is not a lack of intelligence, but rather a lack of reliable, accessible information. Even in the age of the Internet, most people still get their news from traditional sources — newspapers, radio, and the nightly TV news. In these largely corporate media, there is little mind paid to the vital role of reportage in civic life. And so for every well-researched, carefully considered piece of reporting, there's reams of laziness, sensationalism, manipulation, and jingoism — even when the US government is not directly paying for it. We can see as much in ABC's presentation of its own poll results, in which great care is taken to diminish their significance: "It's worth noting that, for most Americans, finding WMDs was never a prerequiste for war." The facts, it seems, are not as critical as you may have thought.

Given the choice, most Americans would naturally prefer the truth over lies, misinformation, and indirection; given adequate info, Americans are no dumber than the rest of us dummies. Take, for example, an Associated Press poll also conducted in March that found that some two-thirds of American respondents said no nation—including the U.S.A. — should be permitted to have nuclear weapons. This is at a time when the Bush administration continues to fund the development and manufacture of lower-yield "tactical" nuclear devices, weapons that are designed specifically for improved usability in actual warfare.

Clearly, those in positions of power and influence do not have a limitless potential to manipulate public opinion, regardless of how much they may want to do so. Without ignorance or ambiguity, there's rarely much room to wiggle. So a political culture that encourages mistrust toward intelligence plays right into the hands of opinion-makers. Inevitably, even being well-informed, nevermind well-educated or intellectual, begins to have a elitist edge to it. Liars love it this way. It makes their job that much easier. And in respect to liars, Americans are hardly alone. But as citizens of one of the most affluent, most militarily endowed nations on the planet, Americans do have a uniquely pressing responsibility to sniff those liars out.





Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: LALaw04 on September 29, 2006, 09:57:48 PM
Alright, who hijacked this thread??
Title: Nation of Drunkards
Post by: friedman on October 01, 2006, 07:59:29 PM

There is a game played all over the world. In some places — Canada and the UK spring to mind — it's even achieved the status of a sport. In the ultimate manifestation of this sport, smartly dressed TV presenters are shipped over to the United States, microphones in hand. They descend upon the trailer parks, the high schools, the universities, and the lower-income city neighborhhoods, for candid, deliberately cruel interviews about global politics, foreign cultures, evolution, geography—anything that will elicit blank stares from their marks. The message is abundantly clear: Americans, as we all know, are hilariously stupid.

(http://adbusters.org/blogs/images/stories/the_front/usa_1.jpg)

A poll conducted in mid-March by ABC News would seem to bear this out, revealing that roughly 56% of Americans still think that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war began. Of course, everyone else seems to know that no WMDs have ever been found. So why have 170,000,000 or so Americans failed to absorb such a widely reported, and seemingly important, tidbit of information?

Much fuss has been made by academics, cultural pundits, and other assorted smart alecks about the legendary anti-intellectualism of American culture. They just don't trust deep thinkers, the story goes. They think that intelligence equals pretense. They want their leaders to be regular folk, not an elite cabal of learned statesmen. But there's also a flipside to this anti-intellectualism story, in which Americans are supposed to appreciate practical thinkers — inventors, engineers, people who do something tangible with their intelligence. And isn't politics, after all, really about practical, everyday issues, about getting things done? And isn't the existence, or non-existence, of WMDs a concrete issue that d**mn near anybody can sink their teeth into?

Whether or not Americans are any more or any less prone to anti-intellectualism is not really at the heart of the issue. Because the key problem is not a lack of intelligence, but rather a lack of reliable, accessible information. Even in the age of the Internet, most people still get their news from traditional sources — newspapers, radio, and the nightly TV news. In these largely corporate media, there is little mind paid to the vital role of reportage in civic life. And so for every well-researched, carefully considered piece of reporting, there's reams of laziness, sensationalism, manipulation, and jingoism — even when the US government is not directly paying for it. We can see as much in ABC's presentation of its own poll results, in which great care is taken to diminish their significance: "It's worth noting that, for most Americans, finding WMDs was never a prerequiste for war." The facts, it seems, are not as critical as you may have thought.

Given the choice, most Americans would naturally prefer the truth over lies, misinformation, and indirection; given adequate info, Americans are no dumber than the rest of us dummies. Take, for example, an Associated Press poll also conducted in March that found that some two-thirds of American respondents said no nation—including the U.S.A. — should be permitted to have nuclear weapons. This is at a time when the Bush administration continues to fund the development and manufacture of lower-yield "tactical" nuclear devices, weapons that are designed specifically for improved usability in actual warfare.

Clearly, those in positions of power and influence do not have a limitless potential to manipulate public opinion, regardless of how much they may want to do so. Without ignorance or ambiguity, there's rarely much room to wiggle. So a political culture that encourages mistrust toward intelligence plays right into the hands of opinion-makers. Inevitably, even being well-informed, nevermind well-educated or intellectual, begins to have a elitist edge to it. Liars love it this way. It makes their job that much easier. And in respect to liars, Americans are hardly alone. But as citizens of one of the most affluent, most militarily endowed nations on the planet, Americans do have a uniquely pressing responsibility to sniff those liars out.


(http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/103085.jpg)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: parlezvous on October 04, 2006, 02:27:14 AM

The model that seems best able to describe a horizontally-networked society is found in the technology of holography. Without getting too enmeshed in the mechanics of the process, holography is a system that permits the creation of three-dimensional images in which a laser beam is split into "reference" and "object" beams. In the interplay between the "object" and "reference" beams, a photographic negative is produced. Unlike the negative of a standard camera, however -- in which the photographed object is clearly presented in negative form -- the holographic negative consists of an amorphous distribution of particles. What is most interesting is this: if you were to reproduce only a small portion of the negative taken from a standard camera, you would only get the image in that section of the negative. But if you were to run a laser through any portion of the holographic negative, the entire content of the negative is reproduced! The entire message, in other words, is distributed throughout the negative. Thus the word "hologram," which, in Greek, means "whole message."


Could someone explain this in a little bit of more detail?
Title: Re: PRIMERICA
Post by: capsaicin on October 08, 2006, 11:16:49 PM

Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etcetera).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult." So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.

Not surprisingly, Amway itself states that it is not a cult:

- I've heard rumors that Amway is a cult. Is this true?
- No, Amway Corporation is a business and, similar to other large and established companies, has a distinct environment defined by shared business goals. Shared business philosophies should not be misinterpreted as a cult. As a part of a group of companies whose most recent fiscal year global sales totaled $4.5 billion and which manufacture and distribute quality products and services, Amway offers a business opportunity that is open to all, regardless of religious beliefs, race or gender. Amway really is a microcosm of the world, with more than 3.6 million entrepreneurs worldwide representing nearly every culture, ethnic background, and political and religious belief finding in the Amway business a way to meet their goals. While unique as individuals, Amway IBOs share a desire to succeed in a business of their own and recognize Amway as an excellent opportunity to achieve their goals. New IBOs receive training, motivation and support in building independent businesses, and are rewarded for their achievements. A close look at Amway will reveal that any reference to Amway as a cult is incorrect.

In an unrelated issue, Amway has been the subject of a legal fight on charges of spreading rumors about competitor Procter & Gamble's alleged involvement with Satanism. But court records show that such rumors were spread by a small number of independent, indivdual Amway distributors. Moreover, as a lawyer for Amway pointed out, "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false."


(http://ww4.primerica.com/public/graphics/hub.gif)

"Primerica is a key distribution hub for Citigroup, the largest financial services company in the world."

The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 1999

Primerica Financial Services says it engages in direct marketing of financial services, notably term life insurance, long term care insurance, mortgage refinancing, mutual fund investing, and prepaid legal services.

Yet, Primerica exists primarily to gather new recruits rather than provide financial services. If the scholarship program is not taken advantage of, Primerica charges a $199 contribution to state licensing fees which total an average of $600-$700 (depending on state). The recruiting system of some representatives also sucks ass. Although rebuked in Annual Compliance Meetings, certain representatives invite guests to the business opportunity meeting under the impression that they are interviewing for a salaried position.

http://www.primericabuster.com

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff127284.htm

http://fcnforums.christianity.com/Primerica?/m_90041/tm.htm

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=25840

http://www.armydiller.com/financial-scam


Here it is a book on the subject:

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0964879514.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_V66862689_.jpg)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Styrofoam on November 01, 2006, 09:35:51 AM
So let's see... I attend a T4 school at night. Tell me what stereotypes I qualify for, because I think it'd be keen! I don't understand the bigotry that exists in this thread, unless I try not to take any of this too seriously. Unfortunately, some of this same bigotry extends beyond law school into the law profession as well.

Sigh... I'll have to say that people at my school are likely from a different walk in life than those students who have posted here in opposition to T4 schools. In fact, we are mostly mid-career professionals. We are engineers, entrepreneurs, doctors, you name it. Many of us have families, so we chose to attend law school during the evenings because we need to put bread on the table.

Condescending upon T4 students is also condescending upon T4 schools. There are professors at my school who hold multiple Harvard or other T1 degrees, also hold prominent judicial appointments across the state, connected into some of the most powerful networks in the country.

We're T4 and we're proud of it. By the way, if you guys have ever used a Glannon Guide. He's been a professor here for almost 30 years. He's a T4 professor teaching directly to T4 students.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: egolaw on November 03, 2006, 08:37:59 PM

Condescending upon T4 students is also condescending upon T4 schools. There are professors at my school who hold multiple Harvard or other T1 degrees,


Unless they're minorities, they've graduated at the bottom of their T1's class.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: gejco on November 06, 2006, 04:41:59 AM

I've heard that homosexuality is a gateway lifestyle. Therefore, the legalization of gay marriage might lead to the eventual legalization of bestiality or cannibalism.


In Africa cannibalism is random. Six men in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were arrested for cannibalism; the men dug up graves, ate human flesh, and made shoes out of human skin. A Nigerian man confessed to chopping up his boss after a payment dispute and making her into pepper soup. A German cannibal named Armin Meiwes said he was sorry for killing and eating another man, who supposedly agreed to be eaten and shared a meal of his own penis with his killer. Prosecutors charged Meiwes with "murder for sexual satisfaction," because cannibalism is not a crime in Germany.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: johns259 on November 06, 2006, 10:49:46 AM

I've heard that homosexuality is a gateway lifestyle. Therefore, the legalization of gay marriage might lead to the eventual legalization of bestiality or cannibalism.


In Africa cannibalism is random. Six men in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were arrested for cannibalism; the men dug up graves, ate human flesh, and made shoes out of human skin. A Nigerian man confessed to chopping up his boss after a payment dispute and making her into pepper soup. A German cannibal named Armin Meiwes said he was sorry for killing and eating another man, who supposedly agreed to be eaten and shared a meal of his own penis with his killer. Prosecutors charged Meiwes with "murder for sexual satisfaction," because cannibalism is not a crime in Germany.

Speaking of gay marriage as a gateway lifestyle, if any of you guys are on Facebook. Join the group "Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs," it has a list on it that is hilarious.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: theworldinahand on November 06, 2006, 10:17:57 PM
well, jokes aside, i think it's ridiculous to compare homosexuality with cannibalism ... i mean, the first is clearly an abhorrent behavior, the second not.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: CoxlessPair on November 07, 2006, 05:39:49 PM
Theworldinahand:

I don't see how you can just baldly classify cannibalism as "clearly abhorrent  behavior."
You can surely object to it but I fail to see how it cannot be put on a pedestal with homosexuality or any other lifestyle choice. Cannibalism is a practice that Western civilization has decided to shun, that does not necessarily make it "wrong."



Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: pruritis on November 07, 2006, 06:31:26 PM

In Africa cannibalism is random. Six men in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were arrested for cannibalism; the men dug up graves, ate human flesh, and made shoes out of human skin. A Nigerian man confessed to chopping up his boss after a payment dispute and making her into pepper soup. A German cannibal named Armin Meiwes said he was sorry for killing and eating another man, who supposedly agreed to be eaten and shared a meal of his own penis with his killer. Prosecutors charged Meiwes with "murder for sexual satisfaction," because cannibalism is not a crime in Germany.


Just to get this right, does "cannibalism" mean literally eating another hb or it encompasses sinister behavior and action on the part of the perpetrator that causes another hb to die (that's to say figuratively eating someone)?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: timetorock on November 09, 2006, 03:08:41 PM
LOL pruritis,

A la tuhuelpa legria macarena
Que tuhuelce paralla legria cosabuena
A la tuhuelpa legria macarena Eeeh, macarena
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: courselines on November 11, 2006, 11:52:40 AM
I know a guy who went to a 4T and became a personal injury lawyer. Now he is worth millions, with his own firm and is widely respected in my area. He may have had a bad LSAT, but the guy is good with numbers and business.

Just throwing that out there.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: butas on November 19, 2006, 09:23:27 AM

Just to get this right, does "cannibalism" mean literally eating another hb or it encompasses sinister behavior and action on the part of the perpetrator that causes another hb to die (that's to say figuratively eating someone)?


What does "hb" mean?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: johns259 on November 19, 2006, 04:43:41 PM
I'm guessing it's human being.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Runner-up on November 20, 2006, 01:06:28 AM
LOL.. this is one funny thread.

Law is a complicated, demanding field. It is a field that seeks intellectual excellence, and the highest level of analytical ability. And, that's why at the end of the day, I'm quite happy to go to a law school where there is no grade inflation whatsoever, and what you get is literally what you earn. A law school that holds students' feet to the fire, and doesn't maintain a certain overall grade average no matter what, does its future graduates a vastly superior service than those law schools that do not.

My future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: macy on November 23, 2006, 05:56:13 PM

Anyway, what I really feel is anger toward myself (I'll get to that) but especially toward the school. After being shown the door I had nothing but time to do a bit of research and came to realize that my fourth-tier law school had a bit of a ponsi scheme going on .. What I suspect is that lower tier schools accept people who don't necessarily demonstrate true aptitude for legal study, nor passage of the bar, in the interest of generating revenue. That revenue is then used toward rank-improving initiatives, such as a new coat of paint, the odd computer, rat-traps or a halfway decent booze-cruise.


I guess this is not meant to say that law schools are wrong, in priciple, when admitting minority students with slightly lower scores than the majority ones pursuant to their affirmative action programs, as when they do so they simply adjust for the results of discrimination that the minority students faced in their undergrad schools and when taking the highly-discriminatory LSAT. However, when law schools themselves engage later on in discrimination against such students during the course of their law school studies, they do nothing else but economically exploiting them. This brings us to the very thing that law schools do -- under the justification that they are being friendly to minorities -- they simply exploit them when admitting and failing them later on. If law schools can't help engaging in discriminatory grading of minorities, it is much better to not admit them in the first place. Otherwise it owes a tuition refund to each and every one of the minority students.
Title: Subject
Post by: LawNOrder on December 29, 2006, 09:47:39 PM

On a grimmer note, we have learned in recent decades that nation-states no longer enjoy monopolies in their conduct of wars: guerilla tactics, suicide attacks, and insurgencies have turned war, itself, into a decentralized undertaking. What makes so-called "terrorist" groups so difficult to identify and deal with is their decentralized, non-hierarchical form of organization. Recall how 19 men, armed only with box-cutter knives, were able to attack the World Trade Center buildings and precipitate the insanity the United States now wages against innocent people.


"Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy," by John Arquilla and David F. Ronfeldt examines the new spectrum of conflict emerging in the wake of the information revolution. Netwar includes conflicts waged, on the one hand, by terrorists, criminals, gangs, and ethnic extremists; and by civil-society activists (such as cyber activists or WTO protestors) on the other. What distinguishes netwar is the networked organizational structure of its practitioners -- with many groups actually being leaderless -- and their quickness in coming together in swarming attacks. Completed shortly before terrorists attacked New York and Washington, the volume includes an Afterword analyzing the Attack on America. The events of September 11, 2001, tragically reinforced Arquilla and Ronfeldt's conclusion that in order to confront this new type of conflict, it is crucial for governments, military, and law enforcement to begin networking themselves.

"Just as a half century ago, researchers at RAND sought to understand the profound changes in strategy brought about by nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles," says Brian Michael Jenkins, one of the world's foremost experts on terrorism and crime, "Arquilla and Ronfeldt explore the strategic implications of new information technologies in the latest installment of their seminal work ... Networks and Netwars obliges us to think in new ways." In Networks and Netwars, the editors and their colleagues examine the major instances of netwar that have occurred over the past several years -- from Osama bin Laden's networked terrorists to the Battle of Seattle's social activists -- and find, among other things, that netwars have generally been successful from the protagonists' perspective. The authors also find that, despite their diversity, all networks built for waging netwar may be analyzed in terms of a common analytic framework. There are 5 critical levels of theory and practice: the technological, social, narrative, organizational, and doctrinal levels. A netwar actor must get all 5 right to be fully effective. The most potent netwarriors will not only be highly networked and have the capacity for mounting "swarming" attacks, they will also be held together by strong social ties, have secure communications technologies, and project a common "story" about why they are together and what they need to do. Like Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda, these are the most serious adversaries. But even those networks that are weak on some levels may pose stiff challenges to their nation-state adversaries.

"A particular challenge for the cumbersome American bureaucracy will be to encourage deep, all-channel networking among the military, law enforcement, and intelligence elements whose collaboration is crucial for achieving success," Arquilla and Ronfeldt explain in the Afterword. "U.S. agencies have been headed in this direction for years-in the areas of counter-narcotics as well as counterterrorism -- but interagency rivalries and distrust have too often slowed progress." Writers who focus on the technological aspects of netwar often miss the point. As the editors point out, "At its heart, Netwar is far more about organization and doctrine than it is about technology. The outcomes of current and future netwars are bound to confirm this." Nathan Gardels, editor of New Perspectives Quarterly, and author of The Changing Global Order, says "Arquilla and Ronfeldt are a rare breed: strategic thinkers of the information age. In Networks and Netwars they grasp an emerging reality still lost on those preoccupied with the geostrategic balance of power: War in the future will be waged by leaderless networks that can come together quickly out of cyberspace to 'swarm' an opponent. Like few others, they recognize that the flipside of the celebrated global civil society born of the Internet is the 'uncivil society' of terrorists and criminals who will use the same means to spread havoc and instability."

"Rushing into an increasingly complex world, we need ways to probe the road ahead, to find the quicksand and pitfalls before falling in," says David Brin, author of "The Postman, Earth, and The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?" "Arquilla and Ronfeldt have taken on this hard task, searching for technological threats to a society that has grown reliant on data-based infrastructure ... In this collection of cogent articles, by experts in the field of netwar, they clarify some of the dangers that await us-and reveal possible ways to avoid them. It's obviously an important and seminal work. I especially like their analysis of the key features that enable groups to be effective in this new arena of conflict."


Quite interesting, assuming they're being truthful!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: gouger on March 23, 2007, 01:11:35 PM

As the information revolution deepens, the conduct and outcome of conflicts increasingly depend on information and communications. More than ever before, conflicts revolve around "knowledge" and the use of "soft power." Adversaries are learning to emphasize "information operations" and "perception management" -- that is, media-oriented measures that aim to attract or disorient rather than coerce, and that affects how secure a society, a military or other actor feels about its knowledge of itself and of its adversaries. Psychological disruption may become as important goal as physical destruction.

Back in 1992, while first wondering about such propositions and writing about cyberwar as a looming mode of military conflict, it was thought it would be a good idea to have a parallel concept about information-age conflict at the less military, low-intensity, more social end of the spectrum. The term coined was netwar, largely because it resonated with the surety that the information revolution favored the rise of network forms of organization, doctrine and strategy. Through netwar, numerous dispersed small groups using the latest communications technologies could act conjointly across great distances. Actors as diverse as transnational terrorists, criminals and even radical activists. Some were already moving from hierarchical to new information-age network designs. Computerized aggression waged via stand-off attacks in cyberspace? Or just a trendy synonym for infowar, information operations, "strategic information warfare," Internet war, "hacktivism," cyberterrorism, "cybotage"? 

Protagonists likely to consist of dispersed organizations, small groups and individuals who communicate, coordinate and conduct their campaigns in an internetted manner, often without a precise central command. It appears that netwar differs from modes of conflict and crime in which the protagonists prefer to develop formal, stand-alone, hierarchical organizations, doctrines and strategies as in past efforts, for example, to build centralized movements along Leninist lines. Thus, for example, netwar is about the Zapatistas more than the Fidelistas, Hamas more than the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the American Christian Patriot movement more than the Ku Klux Klan, and the Asian Triads more than the Cosa Nostra.

(http://www.fathom.com/course/21701735/networks.jpg)

- The chain or line network, as in a smuggling chain where people, goods or information move along a line of separated contacts, and where end-to-end communication must travel through the intermediate nodes.

- The hub, star, or wheel network, as in a franchise or a cartel where a set of actors are tied to a central (but not hierarchical) node or actor, and must go through that node to communicate and coordinate with each other.

- The all-channel or full-matrix network, as in a collaborative network of militant peace groups where everybody is connected to everybody else.

Each node in the diagrams may refer to an individual, a group, an organization, part of a group or organization, or even a state. The nodes may be large or small, tightly or loosely coupled, and inclusive or exclusive in membership. They may be segmentary or specialized -- that is, they may look alike and engage in similar activities, or they may undertake a division of labor based on specialization. The boundaries of the network, or of any node included in it, may be well-defined or blurred and porous in relation to the outside environment. Many variations are possible. Of the three network types, the all-channel has been the most difficult to organize and sustain, partly because it may require dense communications. But it is the type that gives the network form its new, high potential for collaborative undertakings and that is gaining new strength from the information revolution. Pictorially, an all-channel netwar actor resembles a geodesic "Bucky ball" (named for Buckminster Fuller); it does not look like a pyramid. The organizational design is flat. gle, central leadership, command or headquarters -- no precise heart or head that can be targeted. The network as a whole (but not necessarily each node) has little to no hierarchy; there may be multiple leaders. Decision-making and operations are decentralized, allowing for local initiative and autonomy. Thus the design may sometimes appear acephalous (headless), and at other times polycephalous (Hydra-headed)

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: SocalCash on March 25, 2007, 10:36:33 AM
LSAT is essentially an IQ test.

So I guess going up almost 20 points in 4 months made me that more intelligent in 4 months.  The LSAT is not an IQ test, it tests certain reasoning techniques you need for law school.  These techniques can be learned, and people who dont study for the LSAT are  at a great disadvantage.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: MelissaM on March 27, 2007, 09:17:27 AM
What's wrong with John Marshall - Atlanta?? Have you ever been there?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: xferlawstudent on March 27, 2007, 04:58:59 PM
Just a small example for which there are many others.  If you look at successful attorneys in the South Fl area you will see many BIGLAW partners who went to Stetson (T3) and Nova (T4).  Both are regionally well-respected.

Of course, you should go to the best school you can, because it will certainly open many more doors.  However, don't be the fool who thinks that you can have no success going to a T3/T4 law school.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: vercingetorix on March 27, 2007, 05:03:01 PM
....and now i would add, Notre Dame
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: CoxlessPair on March 27, 2007, 06:05:58 PM
Just a small example for which there are many others.  If you look at successful attorneys in the South Fl area you will see many BIGLAW partners who went to Stetson (T3) and Nova (T4).  Both are regionally well-respected.

I was unaware there are any BigLaw markets in South Florida. And don't say Miami. It's a second tier market.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: xferlawstudent on March 27, 2007, 06:34:35 PM
Just a small example for which there are many others.  If you look at successful attorneys in the South Fl area you will see many BIGLAW partners who went to Stetson (T3) and Nova (T4).  Both are regionally well-respected.

I was unaware there are any BigLaw markets in South Florida. And don't say Miami. It's a second tier market.


I meant that BIGLAW firms (not markets) in Miami hire these grads.  Even though Miami may not be NYC/DC/Chicago/LA, they still have Vault firms.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: keelee on April 04, 2007, 03:52:29 PM
Just a small example for which there are many others.  If you look at successful attorneys in the South Fl area you will see many BIGLAW partners who went to Stetson (T3) and Nova (T4).  Both are regionally well-respected.

I was unaware there are any BigLaw markets in South Florida. And don't say Miami. It's a second tier market.

Define "second tier". BigLaw in Miami pays as much as $160k. It is one of the ten largest markets in the country. I would hardly call it second tier. No, it's not LA/NYC/DC/Chicago, but it isn't Charlotte/Nashville/St. Louis either.

If you were to divide legal markets into a "T10", Miami would be in it, alongside Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Lech on April 25, 2007, 11:43:21 PM
Here's my list of schools to avoid:

Stanford
Harvard
Yale
Columbia


These are more clubs for rich people to network than law schools.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Gwiz on May 09, 2007, 11:21:18 AM
Those of who plan to actually have a career when you graduate, I suggest you keep negative opinions to yourself.  If you hate a particular type of person, keep it to yourself.  I applied to Thomas M. Cooley, and Widener.  It doesn't matter where you go if you have talent, and have a workable plan.  Unless you're in what is considered the top 10 - 20 then rankings are irrelevant.  FYI: I accepted the offer from the Dickinson School of Law at Penn State.



Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: brewha on May 09, 2007, 11:30:54 AM
Those of who plan to actually have a career when you graduate, I suggest you keep negative opinions to yourself.  If you hate a particular type of person, keep it to yourself.  I applied to Thomas M. Cooley, and Widener.  It doesn't matter where you go if you have talent, and have a workable plan.  Unless you're in what is considered the top 10 - 20 then rankings are irrelevant.  FYI: I accepted the offer from the Dickinson School of Law at Penn State.





You would have really driven home your point if you accepted the offer from Cooley.  Now, I pass off your words as mere bitchy gibberish. 
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Gwiz on May 09, 2007, 12:14:38 PM
Heh Heh...
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: veganvenus on May 09, 2007, 01:39:26 PM
These are more clubs for rich people to network than law schools.

Wow, and all this time my parents have been pretending to be lower-middle class.  They made me make my own way through undergrad, too!  I think I need to have a long talk with them. Thank you for letting me know they lied.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: mamy blue on June 18, 2007, 01:50:33 AM

Furthermore, the nation-state -- the hallmark of vertically-structured pyramidal systems -- is in decline. There has been a drastic failure of expectations that the state generates social and economic order. 20th century state-conducted wars and genocides killed some 200 million people; state systems of economic planning have produced starvation, impoverishment, and death; shortages of goods and services; unemployment; inflation; and depressions. The promises of individual liberty to be protected by the state have been negated by expanded police states, [...]


Think again! Police states are not dead at all -- America is a police state and it does not seen it'll dead soon.

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002


Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.

The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners. Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.

We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that direction. Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear -- from whatever source -- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.

Once it's discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it's too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989. But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?

Let me make a few observations:

- Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.

- One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.

- The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain -- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

- If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.

- Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.

- Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.

- Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

- Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.

- Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.

- The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.

- Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don't see the guns, but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't fight "City Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: mamy blue on June 18, 2007, 01:56:47 AM
- All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: papabear on June 25, 2007, 02:21:02 AM

And believe me, we're not the target because we're "free and prosperous".


Exactly, we're the target because we're "dirty rotten thieves".
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Edgar J. on July 15, 2007, 04:13:12 PM


- One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.


As to the CCTV surveilance cameras: the cameras you see are almost all fake. The real ones are hidden cameras in high risk areas, monitored by 4 or 5 lazy slobs. There are many other cameras, ones even the high-level supervisors don't know about, placed there by the upper echelons of management. Most importantly, cameras observing people are not the ones getting them caught. Plainclothed undercover individuals do, they just use the cameras as proof.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: horus on July 17, 2007, 06:39:59 PM


- One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.


As to the CCTV surveilance cameras: the cameras you see are almost all fake. The real ones are hidden cameras in high risk areas, monitored by 4 or 5 lazy slobs. There are many other cameras, ones even the high-level supervisors don't know about, placed there by the upper echelons of management. Most importantly, cameras observing people are not the ones getting them caught. Plainclothed undercover individuals do, they just use the cameras as proof.


Wow, very interesting, Edgar!
Title: Re: PRIMERICA
Post by: ² on November 24, 2007, 02:20:00 PM

Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etcetera).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult." So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.


My friend got once a chain letter by fax. It's very simple. He just had to fax a dollar bill to everybody on the list.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: terajoules on November 28, 2007, 02:15:33 PM

My friend got once a chain letter by fax. It's very simple. He just had to fax a dollar bill to everybody on the list.


LOL ²! I know what you mean! ;)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Tasso on March 07, 2008, 08:45:05 AM

well, yeah, no kidding. I there was one reason I would give to go to a higher ranked school it would be the on-campus interviewing and the career center in general. Of course, if you get into a teir one school you shoudl avoid lower ranked schools. But if you didn't, that doesn't mean you should just give up on being a lawyer and go for a grad. degree in english lit. The T4 schools will still alow you to go out hang a shingle, get a great government job, or work for a small perosnal injury, family law, or criminal defense firm. Most of the opportunities you lose are with big firms, with a career as a law professor, with the possibility of a judgeship down the road, or with the more prestigous clerkships. BUt if you're not taht interesting in that and you just want to be a lawyer, you know who actually spends time in court with civil litigation or criminal defense, you don't lose that much by going to a lower ranked school. Of course, if your goal is to work for a big corporate firm, yeah, you gotta be at the very top of your 4T school to even get an interview (where at many 1T schools who gets interviews are determined by lottery).


Here it is an interesting site regarding the lottery system

(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1066/43065460qc9.jpg)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: AnneBoleyn on March 08, 2008, 08:19:17 AM
What's interesting about it?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: AnneBoleyn on March 10, 2008, 09:28:34 AM
Sounds like it's more about a guy who sucks at interviewing than the lottery process.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: babychicken on March 30, 2008, 09:24:20 AM
I think CAMPBELL University law school should be added to the list. They are uber uber religious and actually conduct some wacko interview (to make sure you're Christian enough for them) and they are one of the most expensive law schools and they barely made the T4 list. Now that is to avoid at all costs.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: o l i v e r on April 16, 2008, 10:10:26 AM

The model that seems best able to describe a horizontally-networked society is found in the technology of holography. Without getting too enmeshed in the mechanics of the process, holography is a system that permits the creation of three-dimensional images in which a laser beam is split into "reference" and "object" beams. In the interplay between the "object" and "reference" beams, a photographic negative is produced. Unlike the negative of a standard camera, however -- in which the photographed object is clearly presented in negative form -- the holographic negative consists of an amorphous distribution of particles. What is most interesting is this: if you were to reproduce only a small portion of the negative taken from a standard camera, you would only get the image in that section of the negative. But if you were to run a laser through any portion of the holographic negative, the entire content of the negative is reproduced! The entire message, in other words, is distributed throughout the negative. Thus the word "hologram," which, in Greek, means "whole message."


Title: Thought as a System
Post by: superpartner on April 16, 2008, 10:36:12 AM
David Bohm made significant theoretical contributions to neuropsychology and the development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain. In collaboration with Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, Bohm helped establish the foundation for Pribram's theory that the brain operates in a manner similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns. These wave forms may compose hologram-like organizations, Bohm suggested, basing this concept on his application of Fourier analysis, a mathematical method for decomposing complex waves into component sine waves. The holonomic brain model developed by Pribram and Bohm posits a lens defined world view -- much like the textured prismatic effect of sunlight refracted by the churning mists of a rainbow -- a view which is quite different from the more conventional "objective" approach. Pribram held that if psychology means to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists like Bohm.

Bohm was alarmed by what he considered an increasing imbalance of not only 'man' and nature, but among peoples, as well as people, themselves. Bohm: "So one begins to wonder what is going to happen to the human race. Technology keeps on advancing with greater and greater power, either for good or for destruction." He goes on to ask:

Quote
What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%.

In Bohm's view:

Quote
...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.

Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".

Bohm thus proposes in his book, "Thought as a System," a pervasive, systematic nature of thought:

Quote
What I mean by "thought" is the whole thing -- thought, felt, the body, the whole society sharing thoughts -- it's all one process. It is essential for me not to break that up, because it's all one process; somebody else's thoughts becomes my thoughts, and vice versa. Therefore it would be wrong and misleading to break it up into my thoughts, your thoughts, my feelings, these feelings, those feelings... I would say that thought makes what is often called in modern language a system. A system means a set of connected things or parts. But the way people commonly use the word nowadays it means something all of whose parts are mutually interdependent -- not only for their mutual action, but for their meaning and for their existence. A corporation is organized as a system -- it has this department, that department, that department. They don't have any meaning separately; they only can function together. And also the body is a system. Society is a system in some sense. And so on.

Similarly, thought is a system. That system not only includes thoughts, "felts" and feelings, but it includes the state of the body; it includes the whole of society -- as thought is passing back and forth between people in a process by which thought evolved from ancient times. A system is constantly engaged in a process of development, change, evolution and structure changes... although there are certain features of the system which become relatively fixed. We call this the structure... Thought has been constantly evolving and we can't say when that structure began. But with the growth of civilization it has developed a great deal. It was probably very simple thought before civilization, and now it has become very complex and ramified and has much more incoherence than before.

Now, I say that this system has a fault in it -- a "systematic fault". It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is a fault that is all throughout the system. Can you picture that? It is everywhere and nowhere. You may say "I see a problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem". But "my" thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I'm trying to look at, or a similar fault.

Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn't notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Peaches on April 16, 2008, 10:39:41 AM
Campbell is no more religious than any other law school.  I'm sure the interview is to make sure you're not a babbling idiot; if you didn't get in after yours, it wasn't because you weren't Christian enough. :)
Title: Re: Thought as a System
Post by: ex nihilo on April 21, 2008, 11:54:32 AM

David Bohm made significant theoretical contributions to neuropsychology and the development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain. In collaboration with Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, Bohm helped establish the foundation for Pribram's theory that the brain operates in a manner similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns. These wave forms may compose hologram-like organizations, Bohm suggested, basing this concept on his application of Fourier analysis, a mathematical method for decomposing complex waves into component sine waves. The holonomic brain model developed by Pribram and Bohm posits a lens defined world view -- much like the textured prismatic effect of sunlight refracted by the churning mists of a rainbow -- a view which is quite different from the more conventional "objective" approach. Pribram held that if psychology means to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists like Bohm.



Bohm is a quite interesting figure.. During WWII, the Manhattan Project mobilized much of Berkeley's physics research in the effort to produce the first atomic bomb. Though Oppenheimer had asked Bohm to work with him at Los Alamos, the top-secret laboratory established in 1942 to design the bomb, the head of the Manhattan Project, G. Leslie Groves, would not approve Bohm's security clearance, after tip-offs about his politics (Bohm's friend, Joseph Weinberg, had also come under suspicion for espionage). Bohm remained in Berkeley, teaching physics, until he completed his Ph.D. in 1943, under an unusually ironic circumstance.

According to Peat the scattering calculations (of collisions of protons and deuterons) that he had completed proved useful to the Manhattan Project and were immediately classified. Without security clearance, Bohm was denied access to his own work; not only would he be barred from defending his thesis, he was not even allowed to write his own thesis in the first place! To satisfy the university, Oppenheimer certified that Bohm had successfully completed the research :)

He later performed theoretical calculations for the Calutrons at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, used to electromagnetically enrich uranium for use in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. After the war, Bohm became an assistant professor at Princeton University, where he worked closely with Albert Einstein. In May, 1949, at the beginning of the McCarthyism period, the House Un-American Activities Committee called upon Bohm to testify before it — because of his previous ties to suspected Communists. Bohm, however, pleaded the 5th amendment right to decline to testify, and refused to give evidence against his colleagues. In 1950, Bohm was charged for refusing to answer questions before the Committee and arrested. He was acquitted in May, 1951, but Princeton had already suspended him. After the acquittal, Bohm's colleagues sought to have his position at Princeton reinstated, and Einstein reportedly wanted Bohm to serve as his assistant. The university, however, did not renew his contract. Bohm then left for Brazil to take up a Chair in Physics at the University of São Paulo.

During this early period, Bohm made a number of significant contributions to physics, particularly in the area of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. While still a post-graduate at Berkeley, he developed a theory of plasmas, discovering the electron phenomenon now known as Bohm-diffusion. His first book, Quantum Theory published in 1951, was well-received by Einstein, among others. However, Bohm became dissatisfied with the orthodox approach to quantum theory, which he had written about in that book, and began to develop his own approach (Bohm interpretation) — a non-local hidden variable deterministic theory whose predictions agree perfectly with the nondeterministic quantum theory. His work and the EPR argument became the major factor motivating John Bell's inequality, whose consequences are still being investigated.

In 1955 Bohm moved to Israel, where he spent two years at the Technion at Haifa. Here he met his wife Saral, who became an important figure in the development of his ideas. In 1957, Bohm moved to the UK as a research fellow at the University of Bristol. In 1959, with his student Yakir Aharonov, they discovered the Aharonov-Bohm effect, showing how an electro-magnetic field could affect a region of space in which the field had been shielded, although its vector potential did exist there. This showed for the first time that the vector potential, hitherto a mathematical convenience, could have real physical (quantum) effects. In 1961, Bohm was made Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College London, where his collected papers are kept. Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: jamiejamie on April 22, 2008, 12:56:17 AM
Last post was copied from wikipedia
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: klepsi on September 09, 2008, 05:06:45 PM
As we all know lower-tier law grads who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits.

The law degree that Scott Bullock gained in 2005 from Seton Hall University -- where he says he ranked in the top third of his class -- is a "waste," he says. Some former high-school friends are earning considerably more as plumbers and electricians than the $50,000-a-year Mr. Bullock is making as a personal-injury attorney in Manhattan. To boot, he is paying off $118,000 in law-school debt.

(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GK710_Bulloc_20070923214537.gif)

David Burcham, dean of Loyola Law School in L.A., considered second-tier, says the school makes no guarantees to students that they will obtain jobs. He says it is problematic that big firms only interview the top of the class, "but that's the nature of the employment market; it's never been different." For the majority of students and alumni, he says, Loyola "turned out to be a good investment." Students entering law school have little way of knowing how tight a job market they might face. The only employment data that many prospective students see comes from school-promoted surveys that provide a far-from-complete portrait of graduate experiences. Tulane University, for example, reports to U.S. News & World Report that its law-school graduates entering the job market in 2005 had a median salary of $135,000. But that is based on a survey that only 24% of that year's graduates completed, and those who did so likely represent the cream of the class, a Tulane official concedes. On its Web site, the school currently reports an average starting salary of $96,356 for graduates in private practice but doesn't include what percentage of graduates reported salaries for the survey. The NALP data show that the percentage of graduates employed in private practice has been steady, fluctuating between 55% and 58% for more than a decade.


Title: De Novo Legal's "Jolly John"
Post by: Valide on September 09, 2008, 08:00:18 PM

As we all know lower-tier law grads who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits.

The law degree that Scott Bullock gained in 2005 from Seton Hall University -- where he says he ranked in the top third of his class -- is a "waste," he says. Some former high-school friends are earning considerably more as plumbers and electricians than the $50,000-a-year Mr. Bullock is making as a personal-injury attorney in Manhattan. To boot, he is paying off $118,000 in law-school debt.

(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GK710_Bulloc_20070923214537.gif)

David Burcham, dean of Loyola Law School in L.A., considered second-tier, says the school makes no guarantees to students that they will obtain jobs. He says it is problematic that big firms only interview the top of the class, "but that's the nature of the employment market; it's never been different." For the majority of students and alumni, he says, Loyola "turned out to be a good investment." Students entering law school have little way of knowing how tight a job market they might face. The only employment data that many prospective students see comes from school-promoted surveys that provide a far-from-complete portrait of graduate experiences. Tulane University, for example, reports to U.S. News & World Report that its law-school graduates entering the job market in 2005 had a median salary of $135,000. But that is based on a survey that only 24% of that year's graduates completed, and those who did so likely represent the cream of the class, a Tulane official concedes. On its Web site, the school currently reports an average starting salary of $96,356 for graduates in private practice but doesn't include what percentage of graduates reported salaries for the survey. The NALP data show that the percentage of graduates employed in private practice has been steady, fluctuating between 55% and 58% for more than a decade.


[...]


Here it is an interesting account of a contract attorney working in doc review:

"This is a story about working for De Novo Legal at its midtown Manhattan and about its Site Manager, John Thacher ("Jolly John"). In his introductory remarks to us in connection with my current project, Jolly John told us a lot of things I just do not believe to be true. One was that he likes to see De Novo mentioned in this Blog.

Oh, really?

I wonder whether he will still feel that way when he reads (1) what I have to say about De Novo in general, and (2) about how he manages his business in particular. I am one of 60 contract attorneys who are -- theoretically -- "working for" De Novo Legal at its midtown Manhattan location. As I will explain in a moment, we did not work yesterday (Tuesday, September 2, 2008), and we are not working today (Wednesday, September 3, 2008). The law firm is Weil Gotshal & Manges. The client is a manufacturer of high-end data storage equipment for computer systems. Each of us was required to make a commitment to work "14 straight days" (that is, 14 consecutive days). This included all 3 days of the Labor Day weekend (how aptly named!) We were promised $35 per hour and time-and-a-half for overtime (wait until you see how tis is computed!) We were told that we would be expected to make "10-12" billable hours per day and "60" billable hours per week. We were told that the "document coding room" would be open 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays, and Labor Day.

When we were recruited we're told that the project would begin "on Friday, August 22, 2008, or on Monday, August 25, 2008." The project began on Friday, August 22, 2008, and that was -- obviously -- no accident. "Overtime" is defined as all hours during the weekly pay period after 40 hours (in other words, from Hour 41 to the last hour billed during the weekly pay period). Like most, if not all, of these agencies, De Novo's weekly pay period runs from Monday through the following Sunday. By requiring all "contract attorneys" (read that as "serfs") to begin working on a Friday (and to work on Saturday and Sunday), and by maintaining that the weekly pay period begins on the following Monday, De Novo availed itself of 3 full days of work from each of the 60 contract attorneys that did not figure into the computation of their entitlement to time-and-a-half for overtime. I will not reveal the number of hours I worked because that would make it possible for De Novo to identify me. Let it suffice for this purpose for me to say:

1. I am not stupid, I just lack bargaining power (more on this below).

2. I worked a full day on Friday, August 22, 2008; a full day on Saturday, August 23, 2008; and a full day on Sunday, August 24, 2008. None of those hours "counted" toward reaching Hour 41 during my first seven days on this project.

3. Yeah, yeah. As I said above, I understand that De Novo's weekly pay period begins on Monday. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with computing the first 40 hours and computing everything that follows. This is nothing other than bait-and-switch. I have the e-mail stating the terms of the employment to demonstrate that this amounts to a breach of contract, pure and simple. But it gets worse.

Evidently, De Novo and its sister agencies think every aspect of the employment relationship is a one-way street: All the advantages flow from the employee to the employer (and the employer's principals, the law firm and the "client" the law firm represents); all the disadvantages flow toward the employee (that is, you and me). For example, when I worked for Sullivan & Cromwell LLP ("S&C") (through a different agency), I was required to sign a document that (1) required me to commit myself to continue the project to its completion, and (2) characterized the employment as "at will" so that the employment could be terminated by the employer (the agency at the behest of S&C) at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. Are we all insane? The answer is, "Yes, we are because we tolerate these abuses (more below).

On Wednesday, August 27, 2008, the "system" was running very slowly. At 5:15 p.m., Jolly John told us that "we" would be closing for the day at 5:30 p.m. That meant a loss of 4.5 hours for each of 60 contract attorneys. Here is the math: $35.00 x 4.5 hours = $157.50 per contract attorney x 60 contract attorneys = $9,450 in aggregate lost wages. Actually, I understated the loss to the contract attorneys. Since each one has made a commitment to work at least 60 billable hours per week, each one is expected to work at least 20 billable hours at the overtime rate of $52.50 per hour. Every lost hour "come off the top, so here is the real math: $52.50 x 4.5 hours = 236.25 per contract attorney x 60 contract attorneys = $14,175 in aggregate lost wages.

Wait, it gets worse.

Someone must have suggested to Jolly John that it would be reasonable to pay us time-and-a-half for all hours worked on Labor Day, a national holiday (it was not I who did that). He then announced to all contract attorneys that if anyone is not satisfied being paid straight time to work on Labor Day, he or she should just take the day off. So much for the client's supposedly urgent need to have its work completed. I use the word "supposedly" here because why else would they have asked 60 contract attorneys to make a commitment to work 14 straight days, including Labor Day? On Labor Day at 5:00 p.m., although many of us had just signed out new batches of documents, Jolly John revealed to us that "we" were running low on documents. He regaled us with a tale of his efforts to get some (unnamed) third party in some (undisclosed) location to load more documents. He went on to tell us how he said to someone, in substance, "How would you like it if I sent you home for 2 days without work and without pay?" What good does that do me? My creditors do not care why I do not have enough money to pay them.

Jolly John told us we could continue to work past 6:00 p.m. and go until 8:00 p.m., if so inclined. Tuesday was an idle day. After all, all 60 of us made "commitments" to be available to work for De Novo and its principal, WGM, and WGM's client. Nor could any of us scrounge up work for a single day (let alone work on the functional equivalent of zero advance notice). Let's do the math again: $35.00 per hour x 10 hours (minimum commitment of a contract attorney on this project) = $350.00 per hour x 60 contract attorneys = $21,000."

http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: shall on September 10, 2008, 12:22:22 PM
Strange, Valide, I was under the impression contractors win much more than regular employees - this being one reason (the most important one) why they decide to become contractors in the first place. And although they are generally hired through contracting companies, some negotiate their own contracts with the companies. In many big companies employees are leaving and going into contracting whether they're retired or not. Many of these are former employees, often returning to the same jobs they had before they retired, and earning double or triple the salaries they made as government employees. Everyone seems to be doing it once they hit the magic 50: Retire on a Friday, back in the building Monday morning working on behalf of the contracting agency by now. A typical salary for a contracted employee is $100,000 a year, but that's only half of the $200,000 charged by the contracting agency for each slot.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: n o r m an on September 10, 2008, 01:22:27 PM
Can you expand a bit on the issue, shall?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on September 10, 2008, 02:16:47 PM
Has anyone else ever noticed that the reoccuring theme in all of the poor starving lawyer stories is that they went to one of the worst schools in an over saturated market and stayed in that market post graduation?

Stay the @#!* away from *&^% schools in New York and other over saturated legal markets and you'll probably be ok. And if you do end up at some dump school, take your chances, roll the dice, and head to Alaska or something. You probably won't be any worse off with your degree from Touro if you're in Anchorage than you would have been in NYC.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: legend233 on September 10, 2008, 02:33:23 PM
Since when are Seton Hall and/or Rutgers-Newark "the worst schools in the NYC market"? Ever heard of Pace, Touro, NYLS, Hofstra, St. John's, etc? SHU and R-N are right there with Brooklyn and slightly below Cardozo. I go to one of those "poo" schools and I had no problem finding a SA job and I wasn't top 10% of my class. The guy in the article is obviously an idiot with no interview skills and/or is lazy as hell.

FSU is poo compared to UF. You should consider changing markets. Besides Florida is a joke of a market anyway. Biglaw = $125K LOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: batteries not included on September 10, 2008, 05:58:21 PM

Strange, Valide, I was under the impression contractors win much more than regular employees - this being one reason (the most important one) why they decide to become contractors in the first place. And although they are generally hired through contracting companies, some negotiate their own contracts with the companies. In many big companies employees are leaving and going into contracting whether they're retired or not. Many of these are former employees, often returning to the same jobs they had before they retired, and earning double or triple the salaries they made as government employees. Everyone seems to be doing it once they hit the magic 50: Retire on a Friday, back in the building Monday morning working on behalf of the contracting agency by now. A typical salary for a contracted employee is $100,000 a year, but that's only half of the $200,000 charged by the contracting agency for each slot.


You are right, two characteristics distinguish a contract employee from other temporary employees.

1) A contract employee has specialized job skills that are usually not available within the client company, and
2) a contract employee makes lots more money.

Ironically, many first time contractors go back to work at their old employer. After all, if they were good indentured employees they already know the systems and corporate culture. As you will learn later on, the first time contractor who is asked back by his or her old employer is in the catbird's seat when it comes to negotiating an employment contract. If you don't take control at this critical juncture in your career, if you allow a headhunter to call the shots, you could be giving up as much as $20-, $30- or even $50,000 in additional annual income. And, you run the risk of benchmarking yourself at an annual income well below what you are worth.

Contract employees are just what their name implies: temporary, hourly employees. In many key respects, contract employees are indistinguishable from their corporate counterparts: permanent, indentured employees. Employers of both types of employees may or may not offer comprehensive benefit packages, sick days, vacation pay, and time off for good behavior. Both types of employers issue a pay check, withhold state and federal taxes, and pay out of pocket for disability insurance, workers compensation, and unemployment premiums. And, both types of employers issue W-2 forms at the end of the year. The W-2 form is what distinguishes a bona fide employee,... any employee.

Independent contractors, on the other hand, are self-employed vendors. They are TRUE GYPSIES of the workforce. Typically, the client company pays them directly. There is no middleman, no contract employment agency to process the paperwork and issue a paycheck. And, there is no W-2 form. Independent contractors who operate their business as a sole proprietorship receive a 1099 form at the end of the year. The 1099 form identifies the client company and the total amount paid. It does not list withholdings, because there are none. 1099 contractors manage their own money. They must file quarterly estimated withholding taxes on their own like any other business, and they must pay their own Social Security, disability and unemployment premiums. Independent contractors who operate as a corporation are paid just like any other vendor, with a check processed by the client's accounts payable department. To be sure, some independent contractors may use pass through employment agencies as a shield to give their clients the impression they are true contract employees. Independent contractors may also use employment brokers to help them find work. Employment brokers differ from contract employment agencies to the extent that they bill the independent contractor (and possibly the client as well) up front for their services. But, whatever the actual working relationship, one thing distinguishes the independent contractor from every other contract employee: There is no W-2 form. So, why be an independent contractor if it's such a hastle? It's because independent contractors are allowed to make a profit. That is, they can make more money. They have additional tax advantages not available to employees, they have great freedom over where and when they perform their work, and they don't have to deal with agencies.

Many companies will not hire independent contractors. They want to avoid the appearance that they are in fact hiring de facto permanent employees while denying them benefits. Also, many companies like the added control they receive by maintaining a list of "approved" contract employment agencies. Moreover, contract employment agencies can be effective mediators during disputes, and may be required to replace contractors who are not working out. Not withstanding the above, the workplace is seeing more and more independent contractors, especially in high-tech environments where talent is scarce. The contract employee who emulates the independent contractor's sense of independence and control will prosper.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on September 12, 2008, 09:16:26 PM
Since when are Seton Hall and/or Rutgers-Newark "the worst schools in the NYC market"? Ever heard of Pace, Touro, NYLS, Hofstra, St. John's, etc? SHU and R-N are right there with Brooklyn and slightly below Cardozo. I go to one of those "poo" schools and I had no problem finding a SA job and I wasn't top 10% of my class. The guy in the article is obviously an idiot with no interview skills and/or is lazy as hell.

FSU is poo compared to UF. You should consider changing markets. Besides Florida is a joke of a market anyway. Biglaw = $125K LOLOLOLOL

You are correct in that Seton Hall and Rutgers aren't bad schools generally speaking (though they are in NJ), but for the NY market, they are. They're certainly not the worst possible (yes, you idiot, I have heard of Touro, I even cited it for christ's sakes, learn to f-ing read), but when you're comparing them against, quite literally, the best law schools on Earth, they might as well be the worst law schools in their market.

And your assessment of the Florida legal market is so flawed that it's not even funny. And I'll take a state capitol over a swamp any day of the week.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: TeeTwenty on September 14, 2008, 10:19:45 AM
Strange, Valide, I was under the impression contractors win much more than regular employees - this being one reason (the most important one) why they decide to become contractors in the first place. And although they are generally hired through contracting companies, some negotiate their own contracts with the companies. In many big companies employees are leaving and going into contracting whether they're retired or not. Many of these are former employees, often returning to the same jobs they had before they retired, and earning double or triple the salaries they made as government employees. Everyone seems to be doing it once they hit the magic 50: Retire on a Friday, back in the building Monday morning working on behalf of the contracting agency by now. A typical salary for a contracted employee is $100,000 a year, but that's only half of the $200,000 charged by the contracting agency for each slot.

Not in the law.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: tandem2 on October 24, 2008, 04:13:04 PM

  • But in law schools' self-published employment data, "private practice" doesn't necessarily mean jobs that improve long-term career prospects, for that category can include lawyers working under contract without benefits, such as Israel Meth. A 2005 graduate of Brooklyn Law School, he earns about $30 an hour as a contract attorney reviewing legal documents for big firms. He says he uses 60% of his paycheck to pay off student loans -- $100,000 for law school on top of $100,000 for the bachelor's degree he received from Columbia University.
  • But just as common -- and much less publicized -- are experiences such as that of Sue Clark, who this year received her degree from second-tier Chicago-Kent College of Law, one of 6 law schools in the Chicago area. Despite graduating near the top half of her class, she has been unable to find a job and is doing temp work "essentially as a paralegal," she says. "A lot of people, including myself, feel frustrated about the lack of jobs," she says.
  • The market is particularly tough in big cities that boast numerous law schools. Mike Altmann, 29, a graduate of New York University who went to Brooklyn Law School, says he accumulated $130,000 in student-loan debt and graduated in 2002 with no meaningful employment opportunities -- one offer was a $33,000 job with no benefits. So Mr. Altmann became a contract attorney, reviewing electronic documents for big firms for around $20 to $30 an hour, and hasn't been able to find higher-paying work since.


Hmmm, klepsi, I must admit these three examples are troubling..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: fertsru on October 24, 2008, 06:47:01 PM
I have a friend who attends Nova. She has a great scholarship, a paying job this summer and plenty of career opportunities. Her husband works in the area, so it was convenient.

These lists are all pretty stupid. People have different reasons for attending school, and it's all pretty subjective.

Totally agree!

You would think that people who go to law school would base their opinion on something other than their own opinion when it comes to making such outright statements .  ::)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on October 25, 2008, 11:06:02 PM
I have a friend who attends Nova. She has a great scholarship, a paying job this summer and plenty of career opportunities. Her husband works in the area, so it was convenient.

These lists are all pretty stupid. People have different reasons for attending school, and it's all pretty subjective.

Totally agree!

You would think that people who go to law school would base their opinion on something other than their own opinion when it comes to making such outright statements .  ::)

FL Coastal?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on October 27, 2008, 12:21:30 AM
Anyone attacking FSU or UF doesn't understand how insulated the legal market in Florida is.  If you're top half at either school, you have a good shot at good jobs.  If you're top third or higher, you have a good shot at great jobs.

If you're top 10%, you're a lock for 80,000+ in markets with super-low costs of living.

I'll take that over a T3 in NYC.

Thank you. @#!*.

You're my new favorite poster. Seriously. It's like the last Marine in the firefight getting some backup. These people do not get it at all. Florida is not like any other market anywhere.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on October 27, 2008, 02:15:31 AM
Haha, cool.

Let's put it this way.  I'm a 2L at UF.  I was a little less than top third.  With that alone, and a summer job as a clerk in a local firm, I got roughly 13 OCI interviews or so.

Now, in between applying and interviewing, I made Moot Court.  I got 5 callbacks, went on 4, and accepted a job at a firm that, if I get offered after next summer, I'll be making roughly 80,000.

So, I didn't have amazing grades, but just a little push due to Moot Court, and I've got what I consider to be a great summer job lined up -- and I probably would have had 2 more offers if I had waited around.

The Florida market gives almost no advantage to T14 schools.  Biglaw, yeah, there is a little leg up there.  But from what I've seen, interviewers are more likely to be impressed by kids who know Gator football than those who go to T14s.

Congrats on your success. It sounds like you're well on your way.

Thank you so much for showing up. It's nice to talk to someone that actually gets the FL legal market. Gators and Noles might infight a bit, but I think we come together when it counts. Folks outside of the Southeast just do not understand how it works around here.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: TheDudeMan on October 27, 2008, 06:53:25 AM
Maybe the firms that pay $80k a year are impressed with your knowledge of Gator football over going to a top school, but $80k isn't Biglaw (or even close for that matter).
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: TheDudeMan on October 27, 2008, 06:55:50 AM
Maybe the firms that pay $80k a year are impressed with your knowledge of Gator football over going to a top school, but $80k isn't Biglaw (or even close for that matter).
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: TheDudeMan on October 27, 2008, 06:58:24 AM
Maybe the firms that pay $80k a year are impressed with your knowledge of Gator football over going to a top school, but $80k isn't Biglaw (or even close for that matter).
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: TheDudeMan on October 27, 2008, 07:39:25 AM
"The Florida market gives almost no advantage to T14 schools.  Biglaw, yeah, there is a little leg up there. But from what I've seen, interviewers are more likely to be impressed by kids who know Gator football than those who go to T14s."


A little leg for Biglaw?  Gimme a break lol.

Also, $80k is chump change and not worth the cost of law school.  You can make that in Government without a law degree....
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: UFBoldAsLove on October 27, 2008, 07:41:35 AM
Maybe the firms that pay $80k a year are impressed with your knowledge of Gator football over going to a top school, but $80k isn't Biglaw (or even close for that matter).

DudeMan, I would watch that trigger happy finger of yours, every post I've seen this morning from you has been repeated 3x.

And who said that 80K was Biglaw? (FL Biglaw is around 120K I think)

The above posters said that UF/FSU do well in the FL market.

80K in many Florida cities (Tampa for example) is comparable to $140K in NYC.

The only reference to BigLaw was that those are the only firms (Eg. H&K) where a T-14 would probably edge out a UF grad.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: UFBoldAsLove on October 27, 2008, 07:45:33 AM
"The Florida market gives almost no advantage to T14 schools.  Biglaw, yeah, there is a little leg up there. But from what I've seen, interviewers are more likely to be impressed by kids who know Gator football than those who go to T14s."


A little leg for Biglaw?  Gimme a break lol.

Also, $80k is chump change and not worth the cost of law school.  You can make that in Government without a law degree....

I've already pointed out that 80K in FL is a lot more than in other states. But let me also note that tuition at UF law, last time I checked, runs under 10K a year for in-state. (And its easy for out-of-state kids to get in-state after a year.) So the "not worth the cost" argument doesn't really hold for many students attending UF/FSU.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: TheBreadWinner on October 27, 2008, 10:07:40 AM
"The Florida market gives almost no advantage to T14 schools.  Biglaw, yeah, there is a little leg up there. But from what I've seen, interviewers are more likely to be impressed by kids who know Gator football than those who go to T14s."


A little leg for Biglaw?  Gimme a break lol.

Also, $80k is chump change and not worth the cost of law school.  You can make that in Government without a law degree....

I've already pointed out that 80K in FL is a lot more than in other states. But let me also note that tuition at UF law, last time I checked, runs under 10K a year for in-state. (And its easy for out-of-state kids to get in-state after a year.) So the "not worth the cost" argument doesn't really hold for many students attending UF/FSU.

Not to mention that you may actually have your weekends off, and be surfing on a Sunday (rather than reading contracts for typos)... Gasp!  What fun would that be?

I'd take $80-100k in Florida over $140-160k in New York. It all depends on what you want from you J.D.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: TheDudeMan on October 27, 2008, 10:53:13 AM
This is true.  I wouldn't live in FL ever.  Too humid for my tastes.  Now SOCAL is another story.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: TheDudeMan on October 27, 2008, 11:10:59 AM
Dude, there are cheap markets like Atlanta that pay 145-160 and are still great places to live and work.  You can keep your 80k, where I guarantee you still work hard hours.

I work for the feds, make 80k and don't do *&^% now.  Plus I get every friday off and work from home twice per week.

It's all relative....
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: legend233 on October 29, 2008, 11:11:54 AM
And you can keep your $80K in bug-infested Florida. I make $45K more then that and have to bill the same amount of hours (1700-1900). At my "school to avoid at all costs" top 1/3 is pulling in offers from firms in the $100-$145K range at firms that require only 1700-2000 hours. But yeah, my school should be avoided at all costs because it isn't in NYC.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on October 29, 2008, 11:56:02 PM
And you can keep your $80K in bug-infested Florida. I make $45K more then that and have to bill the same amount of hours (1700-1900). At my "school to avoid at all costs" top 1/3 is pulling in offers from firms in the $100-$145K range at firms that require only 1700-2000 hours. But yeah, my school should be avoided at all costs because it isn't in NYC.

School, killer? Also, Florida isn't really bug infested, just a heads up. Plus it beats the industrial waste shithole that is NJ.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: researches on November 12, 2008, 12:33:59 PM

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002


Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.

The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners. Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.

We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that direction. Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear -- from whatever source -- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.

[...]

- Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.

- Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.

- Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.


(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/6735/larry2.gif)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: The Court Jester on November 12, 2008, 05:34:36 PM
Based on today's press release (http://www.litination.com), maybe Wayne State University Law School's worth a look? ;)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: DrLazarus on November 12, 2008, 05:40:15 PM
Based on today's press release (http://www.litination.com), maybe Wayne State University Law School's worth a look? ;)

Good God, is that accurate?  The few kids from the school that could get a decent job based on high grades will have no way of differentiating themselves from the rest.  Employers will have two choices:  engage in a more holistic review of candidates (likely a time consuming process) or just largely ignore them altogether.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on November 12, 2008, 09:22:50 PM
Based on today's press release (http://www.litination.com), maybe Wayne State University Law School's worth a look? ;)

This has to be a bad joke, right?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Remarq on November 13, 2008, 07:12:30 AM
Yes it's a joke. The name of the Dean is not Batterman or whatever it says it's Ackerman I believe. It's not on their website and the name of the poster is jester...
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Matlock!!!! on November 14, 2008, 08:10:23 PM
Good God!

IT'S A JOKE!!!  IT'S FAKE!!!  Do yourselves a favor and read "The Onion" on line.

And most on here claim to attend tier 1's and 2's.  Lord help us all.....
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on November 15, 2008, 03:39:21 AM
Good God!

IT'S A JOKE!!!  IT'S FAKE!!!  Do yourselves a favor and read "The Onion" on line.

And most on here claim to attend tier 1's and 2's.  Lord help us all.....

Given some of the *&^% law schools pull with grades, I wouldn't really be entirely surprised if it were done sooner or later.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: DrLazarus on November 15, 2008, 04:59:10 PM
Good God!

IT'S A JOKE!!!  IT'S FAKE!!!  Do yourselves a favor and read "The Onion" on line.

And most on here claim to attend tier 1's and 2's.  Lord help us all.....

Given some of the poo law schools pull with grades, I wouldn't really be entirely surprised if it were done sooner or later.

Agreed.  The mere existence of very low ranked law schools in overflooded major markets is objectively surprising (and stupid).  We're just so used to it, it seems perfectly normal.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: potentprodigy on November 17, 2008, 05:10:11 PM
Seems like you missed a few!  How about all law schools except the Big 10!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on November 17, 2008, 07:08:22 PM
Good God!

IT'S A JOKE!!!  IT'S FAKE!!!  Do yourselves a favor and read "The Onion" on line.

And most on here claim to attend tier 1's and 2's.  Lord help us all.....

Given some of the poo law schools pull with grades, I wouldn't really be entirely surprised if it were done sooner or later.

Agreed.  The mere existence of very low ranked law schools in overflooded major markets is objectively surprising (and stupid).  We're just so used to it, it seems perfectly normal.

I'd start a law school in NYC or LA if I knew I could get people that are functionally retarded to pay me $40k/yr for a subpar legal education just because it's the only school they could get into in the market they want.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: as it happens on November 25, 2008, 06:40:46 PM

Strange, Valide, I was under the impression contractors win much more than regular employees - this being one reason (the most important one) why they decide to become contractors in the first place. And although they are generally hired through contracting companies, some negotiate their own contracts with the companies. In many big companies employees are leaving and going into contracting whether they're retired or not. Many of these are former employees, often returning to the same jobs they had before they retired, and earning double or triple the salaries they made as government employees. Everyone seems to be doing it once they hit the magic 50: Retire on a Friday, back in the building Monday morning working on behalf of the contracting agency by now. A typical salary for a contracted employee is $100,000 a year, but that's only half of the $200,000 charged by the contracting agency for each slot.


Actually, my dear shall, "the typical salary for a contracted employee is $200,000 a year, but that's only half of the $400,000 charged by the contracting agency for each slot." You think we can't find the stuff that you've been copying/pasting?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: daires on November 26, 2008, 03:25:19 PM

At the same time, people are increasingly identifying themselves with and organizing their lives around various abstractions that transcend nation-state boundaries. Religion, ethnicity, lifestyles, race -- even membership in urban gangs -- are some of the categories by which people identify themselves. The Internet is helping to dissolve political boundaries in favor of philosophical, economic, and other criteria by which individuals create cyber-communities with like-minded persons throughout the world.

But the decentralization process runs much deeper than this. Alternative schools and health care practices continue to draw support away from institutionalized educational, medical, and pharmaceutical interests. The decentralization of management in business organizations -- with increased decision-making in the hands of employees -- has been going on for over 50 years. Manufacturing is increasingly being done in smaller, more resilient firms. Lawyers are increasingly turning to alternative methods of resolving disputes, including arbitration and what is emerging as "holistic" or "collaborative" law practice. At the same time, there has been increasing interest in the use of "jury nullification," by which members of a jury ignore the instructions they receive from a judge and adopt their own legal standards for guilt or innocence. The Grameen banks of Bangladesh have loaned some $6 billion to four million impoverished individuals -- 96% of whom are women -- with no collateral other than the promises of a handful of their fellow villagers to repay the loan. Interest-free loans are even extended to beggars. The bank has a 98% repayment record, but refuses to make use of the courts for the few bad debts or defaults.

The Internet, cell-phones, fax machines, iPods, websites and blog sites decentralize the flow of information among people. It has been estimated that there are some 22 million blog sites in existence throughout the world. The established news media is firmly challenged by technologies that allow anyone to become a news source. Authors need no longer rely on large publishing houses, with "publishing on demand" becoming a viable alternative. The inexpensive availability of video cameras has spawned the widespread growth of documentary film-making. Stock- and commodity-market investors control their own purchases through computers. One expression of a politically-unrestrained marketplace, eBay, provides a means for people to buy and sell virtually anything through Internet transactions. At the same time, PayPal is available as an alternative method for paying for goods and services in a horizontally-connected world. The Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, is a continually updated system that allows visitors to edit subject matter content. This same sort of system is used by digg.com, a website through which viewers vote on posted news stories, thus giving news consumers more power over what reports are carried. On a more frivolous level, flash mobs employ cell phones and the Internet in organizing total strangers to participate in some pointless act and then disband.


"Decentralization", "decentered", "distributed", and "horizontal" are to be opposed against "centralization" "centered", "hierarchical", and "vertical". In "Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization" Alex Galloway explains some unique features of the Internet. He says, for instance:

Quote
"... the reason why the Internet would withstand nuclear attack is precisely because its internal protocols are the enemy of bureaucracy, of rigid hierarchy, and of centralization."

He argues that the founding principle of the Net is control, not freedom, and that the controlling power lies in the technical protocols that make network connections (and disconnections) possible. He does this by treating the computer as a textual medium that is based on a technological language, code. Code, he argues, can be subject to the same kind of cultural and literary analysis as any natural language; computer languages have their own syntax, grammar, communities, and cultures. Galloway begins by examining the types of protocols that exist, including TCP/IP, DNS, and HTML. He then looks at examples of resistance and subversion — hackers, viruses, cyberfeminism, Internet art — which he views as emblematic of the larger transformations now taking place within digital culture. When Galloway pulls "A Thousand Plateaus" of the shelf to reveal the politics underlying the Internet's fundamental TCP/IP protocols he's upgrading Deleuze and Guattari's theory for use in the field, so we can apply their radical philosophy to the e-mail and chat applications we design and deploy.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: daires on November 26, 2008, 03:56:30 PM
(http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/7028/97874501jy6.png)
D+G have reached the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I

Before the Thanksgiving good wishes, I'd like to expand a little bit on  "A Thousand Plateaus" :) "A Thousand Plateaus" is a book by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and the psychoanalyst Félix Guattari. It forms the second part of their "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" project (the first part being Anti-Œdipus). This book is written as an accumulation of "plateaus", or fields of intensity, rather than a series of chapters. The concept of a thousand plateaus is borrowed from a Balinese Tantric tradition signifying a non-climactic orgasmic field of a Thousand Plateaus. In fact, Deleuze and Guattari argued that the entire "book" is not a "book" at all, but a multiplicity of plateaus. Chapters and books are self-contained worlds with beginnings and ends; with climaxes that dissipate the accumulated energy. In contrast, in the act of attaining a plateau one might begin at any point (signifying the absence of a strict beginning), and the accumulated energy of the "climb" is not dissipated in a climax, but instead is experienced as one intensity among many (signifying the absence of a strict end). The work reflects Deleuze and Guattari's rejection of hierarchical (arborescent) organization in favor of less structured, "rhizomatic" organization. In "A Thousand Plateaus" they oppose the "nomadic war machine," a force of aggression or resistance that ultimately works toward preserving heterogeneity, to the "state apparatus," which strives toward homogenization and totalitarianism. In the last plateau the noosphere is invoked. They note that,

Quote
unlike trees or their roots, the rhizome connects any point to any other point, and its traits are not necessarily linked to traits of the same nature; it brings into play very different regimes of signs, and even nonsign states.


They argue that the rhizome "is composed not of units but of dimensions, or rather directions in motion" and that "the rhizome pertains to a map that must be produced, constructed, a map that is always detachable, connectable, reversible, modifiable, and has multiple entryways and exits and its own lines of flight." The echoes of this vision in hypertextuality (the present version as well as Ted Nelson's vision) wherein layers of pages might be connected to and from each other at any point, make it a uniquely applicable theoretical language for, among other new media elements, today's internet. The rhizome is also a politics of action, for Deleuze and Guattari argue to "always follow the rhizome by rupture; lengthen, prolong, and relay the line of flight; make it vary, until you have produced the most abstract and tortuous lines of n dimensions and broken directions.

Conjugate deterritorialized flows. Follow the plants {this is where the rhizome metaphor, of course, enters}: you start by delimiting a 1st line consisting of circles of convergence around succesive singularities; then you see whether inside that line new circles of convergence establish themselves, with new point located outside the limits and in other directions." The politics of rhizomatic organization is a politics of rupture, irrupture, conjugation, and affiliation; rhizome-building disrupts spatiality, connecting lines and creating lines while breaking other points of connection, disrupting static codings with movement and flows. Moreover, the layout of rhizomatic orderings is such that elements that might traditionally be ignored or elided (such as race, sexuality) would find more prominence, announcing themselves in new connections, lines of 'n dimensions' and 'broken directions.' Thus the rhizome is not only a rupture of spatiality in breaking down concretized orderings of the past (the book, the genealogical tree) to introduce affiliated flows and connectivities (hypertext, procreation by infection) but also a move against the effacements that follow from older orderings, working to reveal that which might have been covered over or fallen away from them (such as homosexuality in family trees and/or transsexuality, for example). Rhizomatic thinking thus reveals a powerful means to embark upon viewings of new media, for the rhizome marks a distinct form of spatiality that is uniquely suited to new, hybrid media in a number of its forms.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: kennedyposter on November 28, 2008, 07:34:53 AM
I consistently test in the 95th percentile on the IQ test, but that only translated into me landing in the top 95th percentile of a 4th tier law school (did you see what I did there? That was a joke). So, there's gotta be something else going on with me...

Anyway, what I really feel is anger toward myself (I'll get to that) but especially toward the school. After being shown the door I had nothing but time to do a bit of research and came to realize that my fourth-tier law school had a bit of a ponsi scheme going on .. What I suspect is that lower tier schools accept people who don't necessarily demonstrate true aptitude for legal study, nor passage of the bar, in the interest of generating revenue. That revenue is then used toward rank-improving initiatives, such as a new coat of paint, the odd computer, rat-traps or a halfway decent booze-cruise.


These lower tier schools actually set their curves lower than the upper tiers meaning that while a 2.5 may be a C+ at Michigan, a 2.5 is a D+ at Lionel Hutz School of Law. Since Law School is a sum-zero game it is inevitable that, say, 10-20% of the 1L's at a fourth tier school will fall below a certain line and receive a waive good-bye from the dean while he lights a cigar with your money. See, once they have your money they are then concerned with your ability to pass the bar, which is also used in assessing the school's ranking. An academic review committee gets together and makes a simple, cold business decision as to whether or not you are worth their kid's braces. From all I've read and heard, the practice is nowhere near as common in the upper tiers. Once you're there, you're there.

I can't @ # ! * i n g believe I didn't figure this out before it was too late because I've always had an aptitude for that sort of reasoning (I'm applying to business school now, by the way). Everyone told me to not even bother applying if I got below a 160 on the LSAT, and moreover not to let that particular 4th tier law school fleece me the way they did. But of course, every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason. What an arrogant little SOB I was.

I'm also angry at myself because, at 28 I've just learned that I'm ADD and Dyslexic. Had I taken the odd pill here or there half of my problems would likely have been ameliorated. The other half of my problems is caused by the fact that I'm a tremendous not so nice person, but Merk has yet to develop medication for that ...


I have a strong feeling that you are referring to Roger Williams Law School.  If I am correct, then you hit the nail on the head.  Roger Williams is nothing but a ponsi scheme.  Most of the bar in this state know it also.  That is why they want nothing to do with us.


Funny, my pre-law advisor pushes this fraud school on everyone who takes the LSAT.  I still must dispute Widener being on this list.  Every single lawyer I talk to (and I talk to many in the course of my current job) has nothing but posititve things to say about the school (Delaware campus, anyway) and the lawyers they produce.  Anyone can find the odd school and use it as the example, but it is an isolated case.  I realize that you feel you got jobbed, but an IQ test in no way measures your work ethic, research or writing skills.  Interestingly, the last two skills are not measured on the LSAT either. 

In my own case, I didn't decide to take the LSAT until last September.  I took it with no prep and got a 152.  Not great, but with no prep I'll take it.  Anyway, I decided I'd rather spend the rest of the semester concentrating on getting through my 5 class course load instead of taking a prep course to achieve a higher LSAT score.  As a result the only neighborhood school I got into was Widener and I'm ok with that.  Bottom line is people score what they score for a variety of reasons.  That being said, it seems to me that succeeding in law school is not as much a talent or gift as much as it is a skill that CAN be learned.  Therefore, to say that someone can't learn how to succeed in law school because of a result they achieved on a test that doesn't even measure key components of the requisite work of law school is, in a word, stupid.  While I can certainly appreciate the need of some to inflate their own egos by attempting to damage the confidence of those who attend lower ranked law schools, that doesn't necessitate my agreeing with this infantile pablum.  It is akin to someone who drives a corvette telling someone that drives a corrolla that if they can't drive a more luxurious car, they may as well not even attempt to rise above their station and drive and should, instead, deal with their relegation to a lifetime of riding public transportation.  So, my advice to the above is to either try again or stop crying and find something else to do with your time.  Your cloak of self-pity is flat out depressing and sad.

I know this is old but I feel like addressing it because I'm bored and jolted by the idiotic reasoning of the poster who dismisses the LSAT and the value of a non-T4 school (notice I didn't say T1, I only singled out T4's as being generally insulting to legal education). I messed up my freshman year...when I was 18 years old. To preface, I'm not justifying that in any way, just stating a fact. My GPA will never get me into a T14 now, but as someone who woke up and smelled the coffee after freshman year and realized this was the rest of my life I was f'ing around with, I got my act together. As a mature woman, I got nothing below 3.8 for the next four semesters and began studying for the LSAT the beginning of the summer before my senior year. I studied for three solid months and worked to pay for a Kaplan class. I'm not great at standardized tests but I knew I didn't want to end up at Nova or NESL for a sub-par legal education so I worked my butt off. As a result, I broke 160 and now have already been accepted to two top tier schools and it's only November...So stop carrying on about the LSAT not being a measure of how you will deliver in law school. Stop acting as though these places aren't the cash cows that they indisputably are! These degree mills are rip-offs that graduate (or kick out, apparently) people who don't even feel like preparing for the LSAT! The LSAT is a very difficult test. I believe it is designed to test two things: 1) Obviously, whether you have the basic methodical/logical/deductive thinking skills conducive to learning the processes of the law, and 2)Whether you are extremely intelligent, and therefore inherently capable of law school work (the types who go in cold and make a 170) or whether you feel like working really hard for many hours...you know...kind of like you have to do when you get to law school. Okay, I've wasted a good 20 minutes of my time now. I just got a little angry. Lo siento.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: beamcnally on November 28, 2008, 08:04:39 AM

[/quote]

I know this is old but I feel like addressing it because I'm bored and jolted by the idiotic reasoning of the poster who dismisses the LSAT and the value of a non-T4 school (notice I didn't say T1, I only singled out T4's as being generally insulting to legal education). I messed up my freshman year...when I was 18 years old. To preface, I'm not justifying that in any way, just stating a fact. My GPA will never get me into a T14 now, but as someone who woke up and smelled the coffee after freshman year and realized this was the rest of my life I was f'ing around with, I got my act together. As a mature woman, I got nothing below 3.8 for the next four semesters and began studying for the LSAT the beginning of the summer before my senior year. I studied for three solid months and worked to pay for a Kaplan class. I'm not great at standardized tests but I knew I didn't want to end up at Nova or NESL for a sub-par legal education so I worked my butt off. As a result, I broke 160 and now have already been accepted to two top tier schools and it's only November...So stop carrying on about the LSAT not being a measure of how you will deliver in law school. Stop acting as though these places aren't the cash cows that they indisputably are! These degree mills are rip-offs that graduate (or kick out, apparently) people who don't even feel like preparing for the LSAT! The LSAT is a very difficult test. I believe it is designed to test two things: 1) Obviously, whether you have the basic methodical/logical/deductive thinking skills conducive to learning the processes of the law, and 2)Whether you are extremely intelligent, and therefore inherently capable of law school work (the types who go in cold and make a 170) or whether you feel like working really hard for many hours...you know...kind of like you have to do when you get to law school. Okay, I've wasted a good 20 minutes of my time now. I just got a little angry. Lo siento.
[/quote]


Man, I love 0L speak!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on November 30, 2008, 04:01:02 AM
Remember, passages of less than 5 sentences are appreciated.
Title: The Madoff Ponzi Scheme
Post by: modeled after on January 08, 2009, 10:00:03 AM

http://www.lawstudentparadise.com/forums/pre-law-discussion/7748-law-schools-avoid-all-costs-4.html#post109866


Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etcetera).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult."

So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.

Not surprisingly, Amway itself states that it is not a cult:

- I've heard rumors that Amway is a cult. Is this true?
- No, Amway Corporation is a business and, similar to other large and established companies, has a distinct environment defined by shared business goals. Shared business philosophies should not be misinterpreted as a cult.

As a part of a group of companies whose most recent fiscal year global sales totaled $4.5 billion and which manufacture and distribute quality products and services, Amway offers a business opportunity that is open to all, regardless of religious beliefs, race or gender. Amway really is a microcosm of the world, with more than 3.6 million entrepreneurs worldwide representing nearly every culture, ethnic background, and political and religious belief finding in the Amway business a way to meet their goals.

While unique as individuals, Amway IBOs share a desire to succeed in a business of their own and recognize Amway as an excellent opportunity to achieve their goals. New IBOs receive training, motivation and support in building independent businesses, and are rewarded for their achievements.

A close look at Amway will reveal that any reference to Amway as a cult is incorrect.

In an unrelated issue, Amway has been the subject of a legal fight on charges of spreading rumors about competitor Procter & Gamble's alleged involvement with Satanism. But court records show that such rumors were spread by a small number of independent, indivdual Amway distributors. Moreover, as a lawyer for Amway pointed out, "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false."


Are MLMs similar to Ponzi schemes? The recently exposed Ponzi scheme by Bernard Madoff is named after Charles Ponzi, an immigrant to the United States, who ran his swindle in 1920, based supposedly on profits from postal reply coupons. He took in a great deal of money for those days that was partly spent on high living. After less than a year he was exposed by a newspaper, and spent many years in jail before being deported back to Italy. In a Ponzi scheme, investors in a fund typically receive good rates of return on their investments for a while because they are paid with new monies that are invested in the fund. Even when such funds do not make bad investments, or when managers do not spend a lot on themselves and their families, Ponzi funds must attract new investors at a rapid rate in order to pay good returns to prior investors. With wasted spending and bad investments, the required growth rate in new monies is even higher. Since high growth rates of new investments are hard to maintain over time, eventually Ponzi funds collapse. Then comes the day of reckoning as investors are shocked to discover that they have been duped, and have lost most or all of what they invested.

What was unusual about Madoff's swindle is that it continued for over 2 decades, and was the largest Ponzi scheme ever uncovered, with perhaps $50 billion lost or missing. It was also the first fully international Ponzi scheme, with investors from Europe, the Middle East, and China, as well as mainly from the US. One hedge fund, the Fairfield Greenwich Group, put over $7 billion into Madoff's fund, and encouraged others to invest in it as well. Bernard Madoff is a 70 year old apparently affable but retiring, person who did not live especially lavishly. He was very active in Jewish circles, so that, many of his investors were wealthy Jews, such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, and Mortimer Zuckerman, and Jewish organizations, including the Eli Weisel Foundation and Yeshiva University. The enormous scope of Madoff's swindle raises two obvious questions

1) how could this scheme go on for so long without being exposed, and
2) how could so many sophisticated individuals be taken in by a fund that provided almost no information on how it was able to achieve consistent returns of from 8-13% for many years during both good and bad times?

In regard to the first question, various hedge fund managers were puzzled by how Madoff could make such consistently high returns with the information provided about what he did. Apparently, one claim was that he placed both put and call options on say the S&P 100 index. That might make money when stocks are falling rapidly, but the fund should have lost money on average during the mainly good years of the scheme's existence. One former hedge fund manager, Harry Markopolos, reported him for a decade to the SEC and also to state regulatory bodies. The SEC conducted some rather superficial investigations, but nothing much came of them-the SEC is now looking into why the swindle was not discovered much earlier. This is another illustration of what has happened frequently, namely, that regulators too get caught in the hype surrounding an investor, or the economic viability of different banks. Of course, it is well documented that after a catastrophic event, many "obvious" signs are discovered that if taken seriously could have prevented the event. For example, after 9/11 it was revealed that the FBI did not investigate carefully warnings that some major terrorist act was being planned. This was also the case with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Roberta Wohlstetter in her outstanding book, "Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision," explains why the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor was not discovered despite the considerable prior intelligence about their plans for an attack.

This is also the case with the Madoff swindle, which makes it more puzzling. Why did many sophisticated individuals, funds, and other organizations entrust so much money to his management, and to management by various intermediaries, without doing any significant amount of due diligence? Part of the answer is that these individuals are not sophisticated in financial matters, and each successive set of investors assumed that previous investors had done some investigation. This led to an example of "information cascades", where private information is revealed sequentially over time to different individuals. Later participants can be badly misled if the information of earlier participants is far from accurate. Moreover, Madoff had developed an outstanding reputation. He was a respected member of the financial community and exclusive social circles, and a former president of the Nasdaq Stock Market. He helped pioneer electronic trading of stocks, and continued this profitable stock trading business while independently building up his asset management business. He did not let everyone invest with him, so that those who were accepted felt privileged. His activities went on for so long without exposure that newer and older investors alike considered his investments to be legitimate, even if secretive. He bolstered his clients' confidence by quickly refunding investments to anyone who asked.
Title: Re: The Madoff Ponzi Scheme
Post by: d i f f e r e n c e on January 10, 2009, 12:29:01 PM

Are MLMs similar to Ponzi schemes? The recently exposed Ponzi scheme by Bernard Madoff is named after Charles Ponzi, an immigrant to the United States, who ran his swindle in 1920, based supposedly on profits from postal reply coupons. He took in a great deal of money for those days that was partly spent on high living. After less than a year he was exposed by a newspaper, and spent many years in jail before being deported back to Italy. In a Ponzi scheme, investors in a fund typically receive good rates of return on their investments for a while because they are paid with new monies that are invested in the fund. Even when such funds do not make bad investments, or when managers do not spend a lot on themselves and their families, Ponzi funds must attract new investors at a rapid rate in order to pay good returns to prior investors. With wasted spending and bad investments, the required growth rate in new monies is even higher. Since high growth rates of new investments are hard to maintain over time, eventually Ponzi funds collapse. Then comes the day of reckoning as investors are shocked to discover that they have been duped, and have lost most or all of what they invested.

What was unusual about Madoff's swindle is that it continued for over 2 decades, and was the largest Ponzi scheme ever uncovered, with perhaps $50 billion lost or missing. It was also the first fully international Ponzi scheme, with investors from Europe, the Middle East, and China, as well as mainly from the US. One hedge fund, the Fairfield Greenwich Group, put over $7 billion into Madoff's fund, and encouraged others to invest in it as well. Bernard Madoff is a 70 year old apparently affable but retiring, person who did not live especially lavishly. He was very active in Jewish circles, so that, many of his investors were wealthy Jews, such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, and Mortimer Zuckerman, and Jewish organizations, including the Eli Weisel Foundation and Yeshiva University. The enormous scope of Madoff's swindle raises two obvious questions

1) how could this scheme go on for so long without being exposed, and
2) how could so many sophisticated individuals be taken in by a fund that provided almost no information on how it was able to achieve consistent returns of from 8-13% for many years during both good and bad times?

In regard to the first question, various hedge fund managers were puzzled by how Madoff could make such consistently high returns with the information provided about what he did. Apparently, one claim was that he placed both put and call options on say the S&P 100 index. That might make money when stocks are falling rapidly, but the fund should have lost money on average during the mainly good years of the scheme's existence. One former hedge fund manager, Harry Markopolos, reported him for a decade to the SEC and also to state regulatory bodies. The SEC conducted some rather superficial investigations, but nothing much came of them-the SEC is now looking into why the swindle was not discovered much earlier. This is another illustration of what has happened frequently, namely, that regulators too get caught in the hype surrounding an investor, or the economic viability of different banks. Of course, it is well documented that after a catastrophic event, many "obvious" signs are discovered that if taken seriously could have prevented the event. For example, after 9/11 it was revealed that the FBI did not investigate carefully warnings that some major terrorist act was being planned. This was also the case with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Roberta Wohlstetter in her outstanding book, "Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision," explains why the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor was not discovered despite the considerable prior intelligence about their plans for an attack.

This is also the case with the Madoff swindle, which makes it more puzzling. Why did many sophisticated individuals, funds, and other organizations entrust so much money to his management, and to management by various intermediaries, without doing any significant amount of due diligence? Part of the answer is that these individuals are not sophisticated in financial matters, and each successive set of investors assumed that previous investors had done some investigation. This led to an example of "information cascades", where private information is revealed sequentially over time to different individuals. Later participants can be badly misled if the information of earlier participants is far from accurate. Moreover, Madoff had developed an outstanding reputation. He was a respected member of the financial community and exclusive social circles, and a former president of the Nasdaq Stock Market. He helped pioneer electronic trading of stocks, and continued this profitable stock trading business while independently building up his asset management business. He did not let everyone invest with him, so that those who were accepted felt privileged. His activities went on for so long without exposure that newer and older investors alike considered his investments to be legitimate, even if secretive. He bolstered his clients' confidence by quickly refunding investments to anyone who asked.


Yesterday I read the free e-book "Merchants of Deception" by former Amway "Founder's Emerald" Eric Scheibeler. I was going to provide the link to download the book without giving up an email address, but I think the guy has been screwed over enough. Eric's a young man with a bright future and a loving wife. He falls for an Amway pitch and puts his all into building what he believes to be his business. He's downline from a guy he refers to as "Zack Walters" who is really Fred Harteis. Look at that guy's webpage and tell me he isn't the Antichrist. Harteis is part of the Yager chain, but he has broken off to run his own tool-and-convention business. It's these side-businesses that make certain distributors fabulously wealthy thus "proving" the system works and suckering in more people. Eric ends up devoting his life to Amway for the better part of a decade, never able to spend time with his family despite that being one of the biggest pitches ("retire and become a stay-at-home dad!"). Safe to assume that everything in his life goes to poo. He gives a chilling portrayal of how he was indoctrinated step by step into the Harteis sub-cult. Once he was fully indoctrinated with the cult rules -- never question your upline, never tell your downline anything, never say anything negative to anyone, never talk to anyone that isn't in your direct line of sponsorship -- his mind had been completely rewired to serve Amway. Later, when he's trying to break away from Amway, he recalls watching a surviving member of Heaven's Gate on an episode of Leeza. The guest makes a claim like "any one of you could fall victim to a destructive cult" at which point he's booed and jeered by the crowd. I agree with the Heaven's Gate dude -- anyone stupid enough to watch a taping of Leeza could easily fall victim to a cult. That wasn't exactly what he meant, of course…

The story of "Merchants of Deception" is largely one of how "anyone" can fall into a cult. I quote anyone because I refuse to believe I'm susceptible. Most people feel the same, which is the problem of course. I think I'm immune because I'm very aware of cult indoctrination techniques... one might say I'm studying them for the future. It was particularly chilling to read about all the doctors and other professionals who fell in with Amway, often quitting their jobs in pursuit of the dream. All that proves is that profession alone is not an indicator of one's cult susceptibility. Thankfully I did not hear any mention of psychologists in the book, but earlier today I read that one of the top UK distributors is also a well-known psychologist. I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that. I found it interesting that towards the middle/end of the book, Scheibeler repeatedly refers to what has happened to him as "rape." I've been conditioned to not casually use the word rape ("Dude, I was totally raped by that test") in the same way I wouldn't call Dexter Yager a "flaming faggot." It's interesting how feminism and political correctness have secured ownership of the word rape, making "an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside" an archaic and uncouth definition. It's because of this that Scheibeler's use of "rape," including at one point the term "gang rape" referring to how many people were in on it, really stands out from the page. Considering this guy's identity was stolen from him for a decade during which he was unable to think for himself, was torn from his family, driven into financial ruin, and left with lasting psychological damage... I have no problem with his choice of terms.

Scheibeler is not a writer by trade, which is obvious while reading his book. It does lend a certain "I'm just a regular guy" credibility that aids his story. Despite his lack of literary background, he does an incredibly good job of explaining how psychologically screwed up he was as he became more and more aware of the massive Amway fraud, continuing as he left and had to deprogram all the cult indoctrination. At least some portion of the book was written post 9/11 and it's clear at that point, after leaving Amway in 1999 (I believe), he was still suffering from residual problems. He feels responsible for pulling thousands of people in under him. As he points out, he wasn't just in a cult... he was a cult leader. You don't just snap back from that.
Title: Re: The Madoff Ponzi Scheme
Post by: too2 on January 12, 2009, 01:20:36 PM

Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etc).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult."

So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.


Are MLMs similar to Ponzi schemes? The recently exposed Ponzi scheme by Bernard Madoff is named after Charles Ponzi, an immigrant to the United States, who ran his swindle in 1920, based supposedly on profits from postal reply coupons. He took in a great deal of money for those days that was partly spent on high living. After less than a year he was exposed by a newspaper, and spent many years in jail before being deported back to Italy. In a Ponzi scheme, investors in a fund typically receive good rates of return on their investments for a while because they are paid with new monies that are invested in the fund. Even when such funds do not make bad investments, or when managers do not spend a lot on themselves and their families, Ponzi funds must attract new investors at a rapid rate in order to pay good returns to prior investors. With wasted spending and bad investments, the required growth rate in new monies is even higher. Since high growth rates of new investments are hard to maintain over time, eventually Ponzi funds collapse. Then comes the day of reckoning as investors are shocked to discover that they have been duped, and have lost most or all of what they invested.

What was unusual about Madoff's swindle is that it continued for over 2 decades, and was the largest Ponzi scheme ever uncovered, with perhaps $50 billion lost or missing. It was also the first fully international Ponzi scheme, with investors from Europe, the Middle East, and China, as well as mainly from the US. One hedge fund, the Fairfield Greenwich Group, put over $7 billion into Madoff's fund, and encouraged others to invest in it as well. Bernard Madoff is a 70 year old apparently affable but retiring, person who did not live especially lavishly. He was very active in Jewish circles, so that, many of his investors were wealthy Jews, such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, and Mortimer Zuckerman, and Jewish organizations, including the Eli Weisel Foundation and Yeshiva University. The enormous scope of Madoff's swindle raises two obvious questions

1) how could this scheme go on for so long without being exposed, and
2) how could so many sophisticated individuals be taken in by a fund that provided almost no information on how it was able to achieve consistent returns of from 8-13% for many years during both good and bad times?

In regard to the first question, various hedge fund managers were puzzled by how Madoff could make such consistently high returns with the information provided about what he did. Apparently, one claim was that he placed both put and call options on say the S&P 100 index. That might make money when stocks are falling rapidly, but the fund should have lost money on average during the mainly good years of the scheme's existence. One former hedge fund manager, Harry Markopolos, reported him for a decade to the SEC and also to state regulatory bodies. The SEC conducted some rather superficial investigations, but nothing much came of them-the SEC is now looking into why the swindle was not discovered much earlier. This is another illustration of what has happened frequently, namely, that regulators too get caught in the hype surrounding an investor, or the economic viability of different banks. Of course, it is well documented that after a catastrophic event, many "obvious" signs are discovered that if taken seriously could have prevented the event. For example, after 9/11 it was revealed that the FBI did not investigate carefully warnings that some major terrorist act was being planned. This was also the case with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Roberta Wohlstetter in her outstanding book, "Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision," explains why the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor was not discovered despite the considerable prior intelligence about their plans for an attack.

This is also the case with the Madoff swindle, which makes it more puzzling. Why did many sophisticated individuals, funds, and other organizations entrust so much money to his management, and to management by various intermediaries, without doing any significant amount of due diligence? Part of the answer is that these individuals are not sophisticated in financial matters, and each successive set of investors assumed that previous investors had done some investigation. This led to an example of "information cascades", where private information is revealed sequentially over time to different individuals. Later participants can be badly misled if the information of earlier participants is far from accurate. Moreover, Madoff had developed an outstanding reputation. He was a respected member of the financial community and exclusive social circles, and a former president of the Nasdaq Stock Market. He helped pioneer electronic trading of stocks, and continued this profitable stock trading business while independently building up his asset management business. He did not let everyone invest with him, so that those who were accepted felt privileged. His activities went on for so long without exposure that newer and older investors alike considered his investments to be legitimate, even if secretive. He bolstered his clients' confidence by quickly refunding investments to anyone who asked.


As to pyramid schemes:

Many pyramids are more sophisticated than the simple model. These recognize that recruiting a large number of others into a scheme can be difficult so a seemingly simpler model is used. In this model each person must recruit two others, but the ease of achieving this is offset because the depth required to recoup any money also increases. The scheme requires a person to recruit two others, who must each recruit two others, who must each recruit two others.

(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9586/8ballik0.jpg)
The "8-ball" model contains a total of 15 members. Note that unlike in the picture, the triangular setup in the cue game of eight-ball corresponds to an arithmetic progression 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15. The pyramid scheme in the picture in contrast is a geometric progression 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15.

Prior instances of this scam have been called the "Airplane Game" and the four tiers labelled as "captain", "co-pilot", "crew", and "passenger" to denote a person's level. Such schemes may try to downplay their pyramid nature by referring to themselves as "gifting circles" with money being "gifted". Popular scams such as the "Women Empowering Women" do exactly this. Joiners may even be told that "gifting" is a way to skirt around tax laws.

Whichever euphemism is used, there are 15 total people in four tiers (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 ) in the scheme - the person at the top of this tree is the "captain", the two below are "co-pilots", the four below are "crew" and the bottom eight joiners are the "passengers". The eight passengers must each pay (or "gift") a sum (e.g. $1000) to join the scheme. This sum (e.g. $8000) goes to the captain who leaves, with everyone remaining moving up one tier. There are now two new captains so the group splits in two with each group requiring eight new passengers. A person who joins the scheme as a passenger will not see a return until they exit the scheme as a captain. This requires that 14 others have been persuaded to join underneath them. Therefore, the bottom 3 tiers of the pyramid always lose their money when the scheme finally collapses.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: three_lotteries on January 13, 2009, 12:41:45 PM
Wow, very interesting, too2, to say the least :)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: mimosa on January 13, 2009, 01:39:14 PM
I don't quite understand it - could someone provide some insight?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: zotzschca on February 03, 2009, 05:34:51 PM

Actually, my dear shall, "the typical salary for a contracted employee is $200,000 a year, but that's only half of the $400,000 charged by the contracting agency for each slot." You think we can't find the stuff that you've been copying/pasting?


$200 an hour? I find it strange to believe so! 
Title: Re: The Madoff Ponzi Scheme
Post by: nesto on February 10, 2009, 10:23:10 AM

Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etc).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult."

So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.


Are MLMs similar to Ponzi schemes? The recently exposed Ponzi scheme by Bernard Madoff is named after Charles Ponzi, an immigrant to the United States, who ran his swindle in 1920, based supposedly on profits from postal reply coupons. He took in a great deal of money for those days that was partly spent on high living. After less than a year he was exposed by a newspaper, and spent many years in jail before being deported back to Italy. In a Ponzi scheme, investors in a fund typically receive good rates of return on their investments for a while because they are paid with new monies that are invested in the fund. Even when such funds do not make bad investments, or when managers do not spend a lot on themselves and their families, Ponzi funds must attract new investors at a rapid rate in order to pay good returns to prior investors. With wasted spending and bad investments, the required growth rate in new monies is even higher. Since high growth rates of new investments are hard to maintain over time, eventually Ponzi funds collapse. Then comes the day of reckoning as investors are shocked to discover that they have been duped, and have lost most or all of what they invested.

What was unusual about Madoff's swindle is that it continued for over 2 decades, and was the largest Ponzi scheme ever uncovered, with perhaps $50 billion lost or missing. It was also the first fully international Ponzi scheme, with investors from Europe, the Middle East, and China, as well as mainly from the US. One hedge fund, the Fairfield Greenwich Group, put over $7 billion into Madoff's fund, and encouraged others to invest in it as well. Bernard Madoff is a 70 year old apparently affable but retiring, person who did not live especially lavishly. He was very active in Jewish circles, so that, many of his investors were wealthy Jews, such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, and Mortimer Zuckerman, and Jewish organizations, including the Eli Weisel Foundation and Yeshiva University.


As to pyramid schemes:

Many pyramids are more sophisticated than the simple model. These recognize that recruiting a large number of others into a scheme can be difficult so a seemingly simpler model is used. In this model each person must recruit two others, but the ease of achieving this is offset because the depth required to recoup any money also increases. The scheme requires a person to recruit two others, who must each recruit two others, who must each recruit two others.

(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9586/8ballik0.jpg)
The "8-ball" model contains a total of 15 members. Note that unlike in the picture, the triangular setup in the cue game of eight-ball corresponds to an arithmetic progression 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15. The pyramid scheme in the picture in contrast is a geometric progression 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15.

Prior instances of this scam have been called the "Airplane Game" and the four tiers labelled as "captain", "co-pilot", "crew", and "passenger" to denote a person's level. Such schemes may try to downplay their pyramid nature by referring to themselves as "gifting circles" with money being "gifted". Popular scams such as the "Women Empowering Women" do exactly this. Joiners may even be told that "gifting" is a way to skirt around tax laws.

Whichever euphemism is used, there are 15 total people in four tiers (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 ) in the scheme - the person at the top of this tree is the "captain", the two below are "co-pilots", the four below are "crew" and the bottom eight joiners are the "passengers". The eight passengers must each pay (or "gift") a sum (e.g. $1000) to join the scheme. This sum (e.g. $8000) goes to the captain who leaves, with everyone remaining moving up one tier. There are now two new captains so the group splits in two with each group requiring eight new passengers. A person who joins the scheme as a passenger will not see a return until they exit the scheme as a captain. This requires that 14 others have been persuaded to join underneath them. Therefore, the bottom 3 tiers of the pyramid always lose their money when the scheme finally collapses.


Instant Travel Agents

Instant travel agents are non-professionals who purchase travel agent credentials. Travel agent ID cards along with some training are sold by 50 different companies for prices ranging from $485.00 to $7,995.00.6 Some of these companies are involved in illegal pyramid schemes, educational frauds, violating State security laws and State travel seller statutes. The number of instant travel agents is staggering. The International Airlines Travel Agent Network ["IATAN"] reported that its 1995 membership stood at 237,405 of which 24,383 ID cards were in the possession of non-professional independent contractors. InteleTravel International reported that its 1995 membership stood at 35,000 card holders who generated annual sales of $100 million.

Some of the companies in the business of selling travel agent ID cards may be illegal pyramid schemes. On the surface multilevel marketing companies recruit non-professionals to retail products and services from their homes. In reality, what is being sold is the opportunity to recruit new participants and earn a commission from the new recruit's sales and future recruiting efforts. Such schemes are inherently deceptive, misleading and illegal in many States.

The bottom line is that you need to be careful about the various companies and/or agencies that you may consider joining. If the pitch is centered around the fabulous travel benefits you are going to get by presenting a photo ID card, you may want to be cautious, if your intent is to actually sell travel. The failure rate of these companies is extremely high and they rarely end up refunding monies paid into the scheme. Using the common business sense that "If it sounds to good to be true"  is really the best way to approach the issue.

Become a travel agent. This is a scam that is running rampant now. Once you pay a fee to a company, it will issue "credentials" allowing you access to travel agent freebies and discounts and commissions on selling travel. First off, the days of freebies and discounts are done — they are few and far between. Secondly, in order to sell travel and be recognized by a supplier, you need to be affiliated with either a travel agency or be registered as an independent seller of travel with either the Cruise Lines International Association or the Airlines Reporting Corporation. Again, this is a perfect example of the old axiom, "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is."

Deceptive pricing. People should look at any major airline ad and you will see their too good to be true fares. The problem is the fine print. The ads are for a one way fare based on round trip purchases. Presto, your cost has doubled. It seems the airlines are more adept at creative pricing than flying their own planes. From frequent flier redemption to unavailable seats, to bogus two-for-one offers, travel agents know all the tricks. And while the airlines are masters of this scam, they do not have a patent on the practice. Basically you should read the fine print before you hand over the credit card or click on the "buy" button.

Title: Unlicensed travel to Cuba court cases
Post by: Pinecrest on February 12, 2009, 11:57:13 AM

Instant Travel Agents

Instant travel agents are non-professionals who purchase travel agent credentials. Travel agent ID cards along with some training are sold by 50 different companies for prices ranging from $485.00 to $7,995.00.6 Some of these companies are involved in illegal pyramid schemes, educational frauds, violating State security laws and State travel seller statutes. The number of instant travel agents is staggering. The International Airlines Travel Agent Network ["IATAN"] reported that its 1995 membership stood at 237,405 of which 24,383 ID cards were in the possession of non-professional independent contractors. InteleTravel International reported that its 1995 membership stood at 35,000 card holders who generated annual sales of $100 million.

Some of the companies in the business of selling travel agent ID cards may be illegal pyramid schemes. On the surface multilevel marketing companies recruit non-professionals to retail products and services from their homes. In reality, what is being sold is the opportunity to recruit new participants and earn a commission from the new recruit's sales and future recruiting efforts. Such schemes are inherently deceptive, misleading and illegal in many States.

The bottom line is that you need to be careful about the various companies and/or agencies that you may consider joining. If the pitch is centered around the fabulous travel benefits you are going to get by presenting a photo ID card, you may want to be cautious, if your intent is to actually sell travel. The failure rate of these companies is extremely high and they rarely end up refunding monies paid into the scheme. Using the common business sense that "If it sounds to good to be true"  is really the best way to approach the issue.

Become a travel agent. This is a scam that is running rampant now. Once you pay a fee to a company, it will issue "credentials" allowing you access to travel agent freebies and discounts and commissions on selling travel. First off, the days of freebies and discounts are done — they are few and far between. Secondly, in order to sell travel and be recognized by a supplier, you need to be affiliated with either a travel agency or be registered as an independent seller of travel with either the Cruise Lines International Association or the Airlines Reporting Corporation. Again, this is a perfect example of the old axiom, "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is."


Here it is an article from Havana Journal:

Travelocity sells tickets to Cuba

Tue June 28, 2005

Hearings before administrative law judges (ALJ) for alleged unlicensed travel to Cuba continue. This week, Judge Irwin Schroeder, an administrative law judge (ALJ) who is commissioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to hear Cuba travel cases, heard testimony in two cases of individuals who allegedly traveled to Cuba without a license.  In the first case, the defendant, Jennifer Kennelly, purchased a ticket for travel to Cuba through Travelocity, an online travel provider. Consistent with OFAC guidelines, travel agencies must obtain a license to provide travel services to Cuba; Travelocity did not have such a license. According to Michael Neufeld of OFAC, Travelocity and American Airlines had glitches in their systems that allowed individuals to purchase tickets to Cuba.

As Craig Ostrem, a Cuba traveler who had a hearing for alleged unlicensed travel in October 2004, testified, one relies on a travel agency in good faith to make travel arrangements in the same manner one does not confirm a plane is properly equipped before taking flight. Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argued Kennelly lost the ability to sue Travelocity for negligence, and her first lawyers for malpractice, because the three-year statute of limitations had passed while OFAC inexcusably waited to appoint judges. He also argued for mitigation due to serious medical conditions that have prevented her from working for the last three years. In another case, also heard by judge Schroeder, the defendant, David Heslop, allegedly traveled to Cuba from Charlotte, North Carolina via Cancun. On his return, he was stopped by U.S. Customs at the Charlotte airport under suspicion of travel to Cuba. Heslop was referred for a secondary inspection and was pressured to complete a document detailing his travel to Cuba including information regarding money spent.

During the hearing we learned from the former U.S. Customs Agent who testified in this case, that compliance in completing the form during the inspection is not required. Prior to Heslop's fulfillment with the Customs Agent's request, the only information the government had about his trip was suspicion of travel based on stamps in his passport that resembled entrance stamps used by Cuban officials. Both Heslop and Kennelly were represented by Kadidal of the CCR. CCR recommends individuals under investigation for travel to Cuba should assert their 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
Title: Re: Unlicensed travel to Cuba court cases
Post by: coban on February 12, 2009, 07:14:34 PM

Here it is an article from Havana Journal:

Travelocity sells tickets to Cuba

Tue June 28, 2005

Hearings before administrative law judges (ALJ) for alleged unlicensed travel to Cuba continue. This week, Judge Irwin Schroeder, an administrative law judge (ALJ) who is commissioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to hear Cuba travel cases, heard testimony in two cases of individuals who allegedly traveled to Cuba without a license.  In the first case, the defendant, Jennifer Kennelly, purchased a ticket for travel to Cuba through Travelocity, an online travel provider. Consistent with OFAC guidelines, travel agencies must obtain a license to provide travel services to Cuba; Travelocity did not have such a license. According to Michael Neufeld of OFAC, Travelocity and American Airlines had glitches in their systems that allowed individuals to purchase tickets to Cuba.

As Craig Ostrem, a Cuba traveler who had a hearing for alleged unlicensed travel in October 2004, testified, one relies on a travel agency in good faith to make travel arrangements in the same manner one does not confirm a plane is properly equipped before taking flight. Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argued Kennelly lost the ability to sue Travelocity for negligence, and her first lawyers for malpractice, because the three-year statute of limitations had passed while OFAC inexcusably waited to appoint judges. He also argued for mitigation due to serious medical conditions that have prevented her from working for the last three years. In another case, also heard by judge Schroeder, the defendant, David Heslop, allegedly traveled to Cuba from Charlotte, North Carolina via Cancun. On his return, he was stopped by U.S. Customs at the Charlotte airport under suspicion of travel to Cuba. Heslop was referred for a secondary inspection and was pressured to complete a document detailing his travel to Cuba including information regarding money spent.

During the hearing we learned from the former U.S. Customs Agent who testified in this case, that compliance in completing the form during the inspection is not required. Prior to Heslop's fulfillment with the Customs Agent's request, the only information the government had about his trip was suspicion of travel based on stamps in his passport that resembled entrance stamps used by Cuban officials. Both Heslop and Kennelly were represented by Kadidal of the CCR. CCR recommends individuals under investigation for travel to Cuba should assert their 5th Amendment right to remain silent.


Strange, Pinecrest, I was not aware of the issue!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: muzak on February 13, 2009, 01:07:24 PM

"Decentralization", "decentered", "distributed", and "horizontal" are to be opposed against "centralization" "centered", "hierarchical", and "vertical". In "Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization" Alex Galloway explains some unique features of the Internet. He says, for instance:

Quote
"... the reason why the Internet would withstand nuclear attack is precisely because its internal protocols are the enemy of bureaucracy, of rigid hierarchy, and of centralization."

He argues that the founding principle of the Net is control, not freedom, and that the controlling power lies in the technical protocols that make network connections (and disconnections) possible. He does this by treating the computer as a textual medium that is based on a technological language, code. Code, he argues, can be subject to the same kind of cultural and literary analysis as any natural language; computer languages have their own syntax, grammar, communities, and cultures. Galloway begins by examining the types of protocols that exist, including TCP/IP, DNS, and HTML. He then looks at examples of resistance and subversion — hackers, viruses, cyberfeminism, Internet art — which he views as emblematic of the larger transformations now taking place within digital culture. When Galloway pulls "A Thousand Plateaus" of the shelf to reveal the politics underlying the Internet's fundamental TCP/IP protocols he's upgrading Deleuze and Guattari's theory for use in the field, so we can apply their radical philosophy to the e-mail and chat applications we design and deploy.


In other words, whereas the tree seeks to establish itself and say "to be," the rhizome is always rearranging interconnections, saying "and, and, and, and...".
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: by train on February 14, 2009, 03:15:24 PM

"Decentralization", "decentered", "distributed", and "horizontal" are to be opposed against "centralization" "centered", "hierarchical", and "vertical". In "Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization" Alex Galloway explains some unique features of the Internet. He says, for instance:

Quote
"... the reason why the Internet would withstand nuclear attack is precisely because its internal protocols are the enemy of bureaucracy, of rigid hierarchy, and of centralization."

He argues that the founding principle of the Net is control, not freedom, and that the controlling power lies in the technical protocols that make network connections (and disconnections) possible. He does this by treating the computer as a textual medium that is based on a technological language, code. Code, he argues, can be subject to the same kind of cultural and literary analysis as any natural language; computer languages have their own syntax, grammar, communities, and cultures. Galloway begins by examining the types of protocols that exist, including TCP/IP, DNS, and HTML. He then looks at examples of resistance and subversion — hackers, viruses, cyberfeminism, Internet art — which he views as emblematic of the larger transformations now taking place within digital culture. When Galloway pulls "A Thousand Plateaus" of the shelf to reveal the politics underlying the Internet's fundamental TCP/IP protocols he's upgrading Deleuze and Guattari's theory for use in the field, so we can apply their radical philosophy to the e-mail and chat applications we design and deploy.


In other words, whereas the tree seeks to establish itself and say "to be," the rhizome is always rearranging interconnections, saying "and, and, and, and...".


(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7469/rhizomeal6.jpg)

Gilles Deleuze (who ironically committed suicide throwing himself from a high-rise buiding) and Félix Guattari used the term "rhizome" to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. In "A Thousand Plateaus," they opposed it to an arborescent conception of knowledge, which worked with dualist categories and binary choices. A rhizome works with horizontal and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. Their use of the "orchid and the wasp" was taken from the biological concept of mutualism, in which two different species interact together to form a multiplicity (i.e. a unity that is multiple in itself). Horizontal gene transfer would also be a good illustration.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: macthbeck on February 16, 2009, 02:11:22 PM

[...] Horizontal gene transfer would also be a good illustration.


Same notion talked about here?


Well, human stem cells have been injected into mice and now sheep. Such research blurs biological divisions between species that couldn't until now be breached. Drawing ethical boundaries that no research appears to have crossed yet, the National Academies recommend a prohibition on mixing human stem cells with embryos from monkeys and other primates. But even that policy recommendation isn't tough enough for some researchers. "The boundary is going to push further into larger animals," New York Medical College professor Stuart Newman said. "That's just asking for trouble." Newman and anti-biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin have been tracking this issue for the last decade and were behind a rather creative assault on both interspecies mixing and the government's policy of patenting individual human genes and other living matter.

Years ago, the two applied for a patent for what they called a "humanzee," a hypothetical -- but very possible -- creation that was half human and chimp. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office finally denied their application this year, ruling that the proposed invention was too human: Constitutional prohibitions against slavery prevent the patenting of people. Newman and Rifkin were delighted, since they never intended to create the creature and instead wanted to use their application to protest what they see as science and commerce turning people into commodities. And that's a point, Newman warns, that stem scientists are edging closer to every day: "Once you are on the slope, you tend to move down it."

Scientists are going too far in creating mixed human-animal organisms, a Scottish organization is warning. he Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, a professional group based in Edinburgh, has published a report on the ethical implications of the practice in the journal Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics. The report is online at www.schb.org.uk.
 
Human-dog hybrids.

"crossing the human species barrier is a procedure that has always fascinated humanity," oted the report, made public Tuesday and written in light of draft legislation on human embryology being prepared by the U.K. Department of Health, to be published this summer. Ancient Greek mythology speaks of monsters such as the Minotaur — a man with a bull's head — and centaurs, mixtures of humans and horses. But creatures of this nature may not remain confined to mythology for long, as scientists have begun tentatively creating mixed organisms. An array of experiments have produced animals with some human cells, for instance. Such procedures "mix human and animal biological elements to such an extent that it questions the very concept of being entirely human," the report said. This raises "grave and complex ethical difficulties."

Some ethicists worry that the experiments might force society to make confounding decisions on whether, say, a human-chimp mix would have human rights. Other concerns are that such a creature could suffer from being outcast as a "monster," from having a chimp as its biological father or mother, or from unusual health problems. Some inter-species mixtures are powerful research tools, the report said. This "became clear about a decade ago in a series of dramatic experiments in which small sections of brains from developing quails were taken and transplanted into the developing brains of chickens. The resulting chickens exhibited vocal trills and head bobs unique to quails, proving that the transplanted parts of the brain contained the neural circuitry for quail calls. It also offered astonishing proof that complex behaviours could be transferred across species." Later research has spawned human-animal creations, the report said. These usually die at the embryonic stage, but often survive if the mixtures involve only a few cells or genes transferred from one species to another.

The council cited the following examples:

In 2003, scientists at Cambridge University, U.K. conducted experiments involving fusing the nucleus of a human cell into frog eggs. The stated aim was to produce rejuvenated "master cells" that could be grown into replacement tissues for treating disease. It was not clear whether fertilization took place, but "some kind of development was initiated,” the report said. In 2005, U.K. scientists transplanted a human chromosome into mouse embryos. The newly born mice carried copies of the chromosome and were able to pass it on to their own young. The company Advanced Cell Technologies was reported, in 1999, to have created the first human embryo clone by inserting a human cell nucleus into a cow’s egg stripped of chromosomes. The result was an embryo that developed and divided for 12 days before being destroyed. Panayiotis Zavos, the operator of a U.S. fertility laboratory, reported in 2003 that he had created around 200 cow-human hybrid embryos that lived for about two weeks and grew to several hundred cells in size, beyond the stage at which cells showed the first signs of developing into tissues and organs.

In 2003, Hui Zhen Sheng of Shanghai Second Medical University, China, announced that rabbit-human embryos had been created by fusing human cells with rabbit eggs stripped of their chromosomes. The embryos developed to the approximately 100-cell stage that forms after about four days of development. The council made 16 recommendations, including that it should be illegal to mix animal and human sperm and eggs, or to create an embryo containing cells consisting of both human and animal chromosomes. "The fertilisation of animal eggs with human sperm should not continue to be legal in the U.K. for research purposes," said Calum MacKellar, the council's director of research. "Most people are not aware that these kinds of experiments have been taking place in the U.K. and find it deeply offensive. Parliament should follow France and Germany and prohibit the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos." In a report published in 2004, the President's Council on Bioethics in the United States also advocated prohibiting the creation of animal-human embryos by uniting human and animal eggs and sperm. A draft law introduced in U.S. Congress by Senator Samuel Brownback (R-Kan.) would outlaw the creation of human-animal mixtures. A 2005 report from the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee takes a more liberal stance, saying such embryos could be legal for research purposes if they are destroyed within 14 days. "While there is revulsion in some quarters that such creations appear to blur the distinction between animals and humans, it could be argued that they are less human than, and therefore pose fewer ethical problems for research than fully human embryos," the committee wrote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/nov/26/genetics.theobserver

Title: Re: The Madoff Ponzi Scheme
Post by: halivero on February 19, 2009, 12:53:04 PM

As to pyramid schemes:

Many pyramids are more sophisticated than the simple model. These recognize that recruiting a large number of others into a scheme can be difficult so a seemingly simpler model is used. In this model each person must recruit two others, but the ease of achieving this is offset because the depth required to recoup any money also increases. The scheme requires a person to recruit two others, who must each recruit two others, who must each recruit two others.

(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9586/8ballik0.jpg)
The "8-ball" model contains a total of 15 members. Note that unlike in the picture, the triangular setup in the cue game of eight-ball corresponds to an arithmetic progression 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15. The pyramid scheme in the picture in contrast is a geometric progression 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15.

Prior instances of this scam have been called the "Airplane Game" and the four tiers labelled as "captain", "co-pilot", "crew", and "passenger" to denote a person's level. Such schemes may try to downplay their pyramid nature by referring to themselves as "gifting circles" with money being "gifted". Popular scams such as the "Women Empowering Women" do exactly this. Joiners may even be told that "gifting" is a way to skirt around tax laws.

Whichever euphemism is used, there are 15 total people in four tiers (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 ) in the scheme - the person at the top of this tree is the "captain", the two below are "co-pilots", the four below are "crew" and the bottom eight joiners are the "passengers". The eight passengers must each pay (or "gift") a sum (e.g. $1000) to join the scheme. This sum (e.g. $8000) goes to the captain who leaves, with everyone remaining moving up one tier. There are now two new captains so the group splits in two with each group requiring eight new passengers. A person who joins the scheme as a passenger will not see a return until they exit the scheme as a captain. This requires that 14 others have been persuaded to join underneath them. Therefore, the bottom 3 tiers of the pyramid always lose their money when the scheme finally collapses.


Consider a pyramid consisting of tiers with 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 members.

(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7822/330pxpyramid8ballfullsvpx9.png)
No matter how large the model becomes before collapse, approximately 88% of all people will lose.

If the scheme collapses at this point, only those in the 1, 2, 4, and 8 got out with a return. The remainder in the 16, 32, and 64 tier lose everything. 112 out of the total 127 members or 88% lost all of their money. During a wave of pyramid activity, a surge frequently develops once a significant fraction of people know someone personally who exited with a $8000 payout for example. This spurs others to seek to get in on one of the many pyramids before the wave collapses. The figures also hide the fact that the confidence trickster would make the lion's share of the money. They would do this by filling in the first 3 tiers (with 1, 2, and 4 people) with phoney names, ensuring they get the first 7 payouts, at 8 times the buy-in sum, without paying a single penny themselves. So if the buy-in were $1000, they would receive $56,000, paid for by the first 56 investors. They would continue to buy in underneath the real investors, and promote and prolong the scheme for as long as possible in order to allow them to skim even more from it before the collapse.

Other cons may also be effective. For example, rather than using fake names, a group of 7 people may agree to form the top 3 layers of a pyramid without investing any money. They then work to recruit 8 paying passengers, and pretend to follow the pyramid payout rules, but in reality split any money received. Ironically, though they are being conned, the 8 paying passengers are not really getting anything less for their money than if they were buying into a 'legitimate' pyramid which had split off from a parent pyramid. They truly are now in a valid pyramid, and have the same opportunity to earn a windfall if they can successfully recruit enough new members and reach captain. This highlights the fact that by 'buying' in to a pyramid, passengers are not really obtaining anything of value they couldn't create themselves other than a vague sense of "legitimacy" or history of the pyramid, which may make it marginally easier to sell passenger seats below them.
Title: Social Security
Post by: fix fare on February 22, 2009, 12:02:25 PM

As to pyramid schemes:

Many pyramids are more sophisticated than the simple model. These recognize that recruiting a large number of others into a scheme can be difficult so a seemingly simpler model is used. In this model each person must recruit two others, but the ease of achieving this is offset because the depth required to recoup any money also increases. The scheme requires a person to recruit two others, who must each recruit two others, who must each recruit two others.

(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9586/8ballik0.jpg)
The "8-ball" model contains a total of 15 members. Note that unlike in the picture, the triangular setup in the cue game of eight-ball corresponds to an arithmetic progression 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15. The pyramid scheme in the picture in contrast is a geometric progression 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15.

Prior instances of this scam have been called the "Airplane Game" and the four tiers labelled as "captain", "co-pilot", "crew", and "passenger" to denote a person's level. Such schemes may try to downplay their pyramid nature by referring to themselves as "gifting circles" with money being "gifted". Popular scams such as the "Women Empowering Women" do exactly this. Joiners may even be told that "gifting" is a way to skirt around tax laws.

Whichever euphemism is used, there are 15 total people in four tiers (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 ) in the scheme - the person at the top of this tree is the "captain", the two below are "co-pilots", the four below are "crew" and the bottom eight joiners are the "passengers". The eight passengers must each pay (or "gift") a sum (e.g. $1000) to join the scheme. This sum (e.g. $8000) goes to the captain who leaves, with everyone remaining moving up one tier. There are now two new captains so the group splits in two with each group requiring eight new passengers. A person who joins the scheme as a passenger will not see a return until they exit the scheme as a captain. This requires that 14 others have been persuaded to join underneath them. Therefore, the bottom 3 tiers of the pyramid always lose their money when the scheme finally collapses.


Consider a pyramid consisting of tiers with 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 members.

(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7822/330pxpyramid8ballfullsvpx9.png)
No matter how large the model becomes before collapse, approximately 88% of all people will lose.

If the scheme collapses at this point, only those in the 1, 2, 4, and 8 got out with a return. The remainder in the 16, 32, and 64 tier lose everything. 112 out of the total 127 members or 88% lost all of their money. During a wave of pyramid activity, a surge frequently develops once a significant fraction of people know someone personally who exited with a $8000 payout for example. This spurs others to seek to get in on one of the many pyramids before the wave collapses. The figures also hide the fact that the confidence trickster would make the lion's share of the money. They would do this by filling in the first 3 tiers (with 1, 2, and 4 people) with phoney names, ensuring they get the first 7 payouts, at 8 times the buy-in sum, without paying a single penny themselves. So if the buy-in were $1000, they would receive $56,000, paid for by the first 56 investors. They would continue to buy in underneath the real investors, and promote and prolong the scheme for as long as possible in order to allow them to skim even more from it before the collapse.

Other cons may also be effective. For example, rather than using fake names, a group of 7 people may agree to form the top 3 layers of a pyramid without investing any money. They then work to recruit 8 paying passengers, and pretend to follow the pyramid payout rules, but in reality split any money received. Ironically, though they are being conned, the 8 paying passengers are not really getting anything less for their money than if they were buying into a 'legitimate' pyramid which had split off from a parent pyramid. They truly are now in a valid pyramid, and have the same opportunity to earn a windfall if they can successfully recruit enough new members and reach captain. This highlights the fact that by 'buying' in to a pyramid, passengers are not really obtaining anything of value they couldn't create themselves other than a vague sense of "legitimacy" or history of the pyramid, which may make it marginally easier to sell passenger seats below them.


Halivero, the expose you've posted is interesting, but I wanted to say that when it comes to pyramidal schemes it's easy to label as such even those that are not - for instance, detractors of Social Security systems often draw parallels between those programs (where investors are paid off by by future investors) and Ponzi schemes. Libertarians commonly criticize Social Security's pay-as-you-go funding as being closer to an illegal Ponzi scheme — where investors are paid off out of the funds collected from more investors, instead of out of profits from business activity — than it is to a trust fund. Michael Kinsley has also described Social Security in this way. William G. Shipman of the Cato Institute argues:

Quote
In common usage a trust fund is an estate of money and securities held in trust for its beneficiaries. The Social Security Trust Fund is quite different. It is an accounting of the difference between tax and benefit flows. When taxes exceed benefits, the federal government lends itself the excess in return for an interest-paying bond, an IOU that it issues to itself. The government then spends its new funds on unrelated projects such as bridge repairs, defense, or food stamps. The funds are not invested for the benefit of present or future retirees.

This criticism is not new. In his 1936 presidential campaign, Republican Alf Landon called the trust fund "a cruel hoax." The Republican platform that year stated, "The so-called reserve fund ... is no reserve at all, because the fund will contain nothing but the government's promise to pay." Defenders of pay-as-you-go respond that the system is a Ponzi scheme only if the United States intends to repudiate its debts. On the occasions when the Social Security Administration has needed to redeem some of those securities, they have always been honored. Although Social Security benefits to future retirees do not represent debt in the legal sense (Fleming v. Nestor, 1960) the treasuries held by the trust fund do. The Social Security Administration, while noting the "superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs," has described the latter as "a simple pipeline" that "could be sustained forever ... if the demographics of the population were stable."
Title: IATA
Post by: Yourgangee on February 22, 2009, 02:59:46 PM

[...] The IATAN (International Airlines Travel Agent Network) reported that its 1995 membership stood at 237,405 of which 24,383 ID cards were in the possession of non-professional independent contractors. InteleTravel International reported that its 1995 membership stood at 35,000 card holders who generated annual sales of $100 million.

[...]

[...] Secondly, in order to sell travel and be recognized by a supplier, you need to be affiliated with either a travel agency or be registered as an independent seller of travel with either the Cruise Lines International Association or the ARC (Airlines Reporting Corporation). [...]


Bear in mind that much of the confusion about airfares comes from the fact that there are completely different systems of airfares for domestic flights within any given country and for international flights. The USA is the world's largest air travel market, and people from the USA travel within the USA much more than they travel abroad. As a result, many people from the USA -- including many USA travel writers unfamiliar with the inner workings of the air travel industry -- make the mistake of applying their experience or knowledge of domestic USA airfares to international airfares, where they don't necessarily apply at all. Domestic and international airfares, and the optimum consumer strategies for dealing with them, have nothing in common. Any advice about airfares, from any source (no matter how seemingly authoritative) that isn't explicitly identified as to whether it pertains to domestic or international airfares, is useless (at best) and misleading (at worst), and should in either case be completely disregarded.

Unlike domestic fares in the USA, international airfares remain regulated, and the official fares published by the airlines give little indication of the actual prices at which agents sell tickets on those airlines. It's as much a waste of time to consult Travelocity or any other Web site for international airfares (especially for more complex, long-haul, or multi-stop itineraries) as it is to call a travel agent (rather than checking airline fares yourself on the Web) for travel within North America. The differences between domestic and international airfares are largely due to the differences in how they are, or are not, regulated. Unlike deregulated domestic USA airfares, international airfares are regulated both by international treaties and by an international airline price-fixing cartel, IATA (International Air Transportation Association). It's worth noting that every USA-based airline operating scheduled international passenger flights has voluntarily joined IATA. USA airlines' invocations of "open markets", "free trade", and "open skies" can be dismissed as completely hypocritical and self-serving drivel until such time as they exercise their right to withdraw from IATA, as any of them could at any time. USA airlines are allowed to participate in IATA "traffic conferences" only because of a special exemption granted them from USA anti-trust laws which normally forbid such industry-wide collusion on prices.

Why do airlines join IATA? What is the reason for any cartel? It exists to keep prices, and airlines' profits, artificially high. International airfares are set by international agreement and regulated by the airline cartel, IATA. Most international airlines are closely related to, if not directly owned by, their national governments. Most governments in turn have an interest in protecting the profits of their national airline, and the IATA fares are therefore set artificially high. As a condition of membership in IATA, airlines agree (voluntarily) to sell tickets only at IATA-approved prices. IATA rules officially prohibit discounting, and in some countries these rules are actually enforced -- one reason some countries have no local ticket discounters (although tickets originating in those countries can often be bought in other countries, if you know where to look). Airlines like the cartel because it raises the prices paid by price-insensitive business travelers. But it's not the whole story. If airlines sold tickets only at IATA fares, they would have too many empty seats that might be salable at less-than-official prices. The revenue-maximization problem for the airlines is how to get some money for seats that can't be filled at official fares, without destroying the benefits of the cartel by allowing people who would be willing to pay full fare to get away with paying any less.

The system the airlines have developed for preserving the cartel while actually selling discounted tickets at less than official fares relies on the intermediary of the travel agency, and the loophole that neither IATA nor international airfare treaties restricts how much commission an airline can pay an agent for selling a ticket. So the airline can pay a large commission to a travel agent, then turn its back and avert its eyes while the travel agent rebates some portion of the commission to the traveler. All sales of international tickets on scheduled airlines at less than official fares are made through travel agencies, not directly by the airlines, and ultimately depend on rebating of commissions by travel agents to customers. This is how travel agencies can and do, quite legally, offer lower prices for international tickets than the airlines themselves. Airlines know what is happening, of course, but they have to pretend they don't. In order to maintain plausible deniability and keep their hands clean with IATA, airlines must maintain the fiction that all tickets are sold at official fares. Since airlines cannot admit that they are even aware of discounting, airlines cannot admit to any knowledge of agents' actual discounted selling prices. Strange but true: by the nature of the system of discounting, airlines do not usually know themselves, and couldn't admit to knowing if they did, by which agents or at what prices their tickets are most cheaply sold.

All official fares are "published" either in hardcopy in the Official Airline Guides (OAG) or the Air Tariff, or electronically in the computerized reservation systems (CRS's) such as Sabre, Apollo, Amadeus, Worldspan, and Gabriel. By the very nature of the IATA price-fixing system, airlines cannot admit any knowledge of the fact that agents are selling tickets for less than the official fares. So only published fares are shown in any CRS. Since all the major CRS's are owned by the airlines, no CRS contains any publicly accessible information on agents' actual discounted selling prices. The glut of official international fare information available through gateways to CRS's such as GetThere.com, Travelocity, Microsoft Expedia, etc. is deceptively comprehensive-seeming and impressive but fundamentally useless in finding discounted prices. If you want to pay less than the official international fare, you have to buy your ticket from an agent who gives discounts, not from an airline directly or from a source (such as a CRS Web site) that is limited to published fares.
Title: Consolidators
Post by: Yourgangee on February 22, 2009, 03:05:33 PM
Many people have heard that they can get cheaper deals from "consolidators" or "bucket shops" than from the airlines. If you want a discounted ticket from point A to point B, the best way to start your enquiry to a travel agency is not, "Are you a consolidator" (they may say, No", because they are a retail agency and consider the term "consolidator" to apply only to wholesale-only agencies) nor, "Are you a bucket shop?" (they may say, "No", because they consider "bucket shop" to be an insulting, pejorative term). Ask, "Do you have discounts from point A to point B." "Consolidator" and "bucket shop" are sometimes used interchangeably, but aren't exactly the same. Consolidators are agencies that have discount agreements with the airlines. In most cases, especially with the USA and other big airlines, consolidators are wholesalers who sell only through retail agencies, not directly to the public. In any case, wholesale consolidators do NOT offer retail service. If you want a straightforward round-trip ticket, know what airline you want to go on, and exactly what dates, and that airline has the best route and price, fine. But of course many itineraries aren't like that, and most people need a retail agent's help to figure out what's the best ticket for them.

Most publicly-available lists of "consolidators" indiscriminately mix wholesale consolidators who also sell directly to the public with retail bucket shops. But retail customers are charged more than wholesale customers by the same consolidators, so you can often get the same price – and better service, and advice – by going through a retail agency even if the wholesaler is (minimally) willing to deal with you directly. Any retail travel agent can buy tickets from consolidators, and most USA agents who do significant international ticketing are familiar with some of the biggest consolidators for major carriers. Bucket shops are retail agencies that specialize in knowing the full range of consolidators (every airline has many consolidators) and in knowing other techniques of fare construction, importing tickets, etc. for discount prices.

Consolidators basically fall into three categories:


These generally have no retail sales or advertising, and don't want to be known to the general public. (You may have seen the names of some of these consolidators, however, in the validation box of tickets bought through a retail agency.) These are the consolidators most local travel agents know about. They generally deal only with round trips originating in the country where they are based, and are common in the USA, UK, and Australia, among other countries They advertise only in the travel agency trade press, not in consumer publications. Often they forbid retail agents who buy tickets from them from giving out their direct contact information, since their thin wholesale margins include no allowance for retail customer service. They will not sell directly to the public; if you aren't really a professional travel agent, they will figure it out.


Agencies that specialize in a particular destination or region often have negotiated discounts on tickets to that region which they offer both to their own (retail) customers and to other agencies as a wholesaler. frequently an agency operating and retailing tours to a particular country will have a discount agreement with the airline it uses for its tours (generally the national carrier of the destination) and will also sell wholesale tickets on that airline. One reason they do the wholesale business, even if their markup on wholesale tickets is very low, is to boost their volume of production (sales) with the airline, as many discount contracts are contingent on a specified sales volume, and/or have year-end bonuses or additional commission rebates based on sales thresholds. Sometimes they are "general sales agents," that is, official representatives of an airline (usually a small one) that doesn't have service or its own office in a country.

You can often find agencies like this through publications targeted at immigrants from the country you want to go to. Even in foreign-language ethnic publications the travel ads are generally recognizable, with at least the phone number, the destination cities, and the round-trip prices in Latin letters and numbers! Even more than general bucket-shop ads in the Sunday newspaper travel supplements, a quick glance at the ethnic press will give you the best idea of the absolute lower limit of possible prices for tickets bought long in advance for travel in the most unpopular season on the worst airlines with the worst connections in the most undesirable or expensive stopover points. But if you want the cheapest possible round-trip from the USA home to India, Ireland, Nigeria, or wherever, no general-purpose agency, even a general discount agency, is likely to be able to beat the lowest prices of a no-service, bare-bones, specialist agency within that particular ethnic community that sells nothing else but a massive volume of round-trip tickets to a single destination.


These are discount retail agencies that specialize in trips more complicated than simple round trips, often to a wider range of destinations or to multiple destinations. Many bucket shops negotiate their own deals directly with the airlines for routes where they can't get good (or any) discounts from (A) or (B). They use these deals for their own retail customers, and frequently also to sell to other bucket shops. (Sometimes they negotiate these deals specifically to be able to export the tickets to bucket shops in other countries, as when a Singapore bucket shop gets permission to discount tickets originating in the USA) Bucket shops' own deals tend to emphasize one-way tickets, which are essential for constructing around-the-world tickets and which often aren't available from other general-purpose consolidators.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Yourgangee on February 22, 2009, 03:21:32 PM
Should you buy from a discounter? I wouldn't think of buying an international ticket from a neighborhood travel agent, even if I told them to try to find a consolidator fare. Depending on your itinerary, try either an agency specializing in that destination and/or a bucket shop. You'd be surprised how often local agents, when they have a customer for a weird destination or routing (especially around the world) simply buy the tickets from a bucket shop and mark them up to the customer. Bucket shops serve a limited and specialized subset of the air ticket market, and are mostly concentrated in a few world cities. The best places to find them are London and San Francisco; other places with many are Penang and Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Bangkok, and Athens. It's worth looking far afield to find a good bucket shop -- the overwhelming majority of travel agents don't even try to compete with bucket shop fares. For that matter, most agents couldn't construct the sorts of routings the better bucket shops specialize in (especially customized around-the-world itineraries) at any price. In the USA, most bucket-shop advertising is concentrated in the Sunday travel sections of the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, Miami Herald, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times. There are ads for discounted international tickets in newspapers in many other regional and local USA cities, but one can often get better deals from the agencies that advertise in the largest gateway cities. This is especially true for travel to less common destinations (i.e. outside North America or Europe), and most of all for any trip involving destinations on multiple continents that can't be ticketed as a round trip.

How do bucket shops offer better prices for complex international trips? For one thing, simple specialization. Almost all air tickets sold in the USA are domestic round trips (the majority) or the simplest international round trips (mostly to resorts in the Caribbean, Mexico, or perhaps Europe). Bucket shops subvert the airline cartel conspiracy against discounting in various ways. Airlines can contract with wholesalers ("consolidators") to sell tickets at less than published fares. The rules on routes, stopovers, seasonality, etc. for these tickets are governed by the contract, not by the rules for any published fare. Sometimes bucket shops contract directly with airlines and sometimes they buy and resell tickets from consolidators. Since the goal of the airlines is to get each passenger to pay the most they are willing to pay, airlines try to discount tickets in such a way as to fill otherwise empty seats rather than divert full-fare passengers to cheaper tickets.

Frequently, they restrict how consolidator tickets can be advertised, such as forbidding mention of the name of the airline or allowing the discount fare to be promoted only to a particular geographic or ethnic market. It's common for tickets to be most heavily discounted in a place far (even on a different continent) from where the ticket either begins or ends, so as not to depress the primary market. If a consolidator fare is too successful, the airline will raise the fare or terminate the contract. Many consolidators won't deal directly with the public, and net fare tariffs are confidential. One of the most important skills for a bucket shop agent is having a feel for the wholesale ticket market. It's one thing to ask your local agent to try to buy you a consolidator ticket. It's quite another for the agent to know who, and where, has the best price for what you want. Other consolidators, and some retail agencies (especially those with a large volume on one airline to one destination, such as those serving specialized ethnic markets) receive more than the standard commission on some or all of the published fares of a certain airline to certain destinations. This is permitted by IATA rules. The "incentive," "override," or "bonus" commission is officially forbidden to be rebated to the customer, but of course is. (In fact, bucket shops often end up with a smaller commission, as a percentage of the selling price, than normal agencies.) Figuring the actual price to the passenger with such commission deals is particularly complex, since one must satisfy all the conditions of both the published fare and the commission deal. Net fare contracts usually have much simpler rules. (For example, the cheapest ticket may be issued at a higher fare that also has a higher commission. For this reason, and because net fare tickets usually carry the "full" fare as their official price, the "face value" of a ticket need bear no relation to the price paid. All else being equal, the higher the face value of the ticket the better, since in general high-value tickets are more readily changed, rerouted, etc.)

Finally, the bucket shop business is global. Your local travel agent might buy from a domestic consolidator, but they WON'T import your ticket from overseas (and probably have no idea that it is even possible), even if that would be much cheaper. The major bucket shops around the world regularly buy from and sell to each other. Costs of DHL and international faxes are less than the wide international variations in ticket prices. There's a lot more to it (especially in constructing routes and connections, which no CRS does well for complex international routes), but much of the role of a bucket shop is that of a ticket broker, buying for its retail customers on the world wholesale ticket market. Most bucket shop tickets, if you inspect the validation, are not issued by the bucket shop itself. If you already knew exactly where to buy them, you could often get a slightly better price directly. But the odds are you couldn't find the best deal for yourself -- the whole system is deliberately stacked against just that.

Round-the-world tickets are the epitome of the bucket shop agent's art. Don't be fooled by published around-the-world fares. They restrict you to the extremely limited routes of just one or two airlines. Only rarely are they the best deal; to put it another way, only the rare itinerary can be shoehorned into such a fare without mangling it. Most around-the-world itineraries can be best and most cheaply ticketed as a series of one way tickets from point to point. Constructing a round-the-world fare requires both deciding at what points to break the circle into segments and getting the best price for each segment (where each ticket may actually, with stopovers, cover several legs of the journey). On top of that, most people aren't sure when they start planning a round-the-world trip exactly what stops they want, or in what order. Good round-the-world agents are rare, even in bucket shops -- but your average travel agent doesn't even know where to begin. Bucket shop reliability varies. Caveat emptor. They tend to be wheeler-dealers, and of necessity they cut their margins thin. Find out how long they've been around. Check them out with the BBB. Go to their office in person, if you can. If it's worth it to your peace of mind, pay by credit card so you can refuse the charge if you don't get your tickets. You'll probably be surcharged 2-5% for using a credit card, but it's simple, cheap, and effective insurance. Be especially cautious about buying tickets from a "sub-agent" or an agency which is not accredited by the International Airline Travel Agents' Network (IATAN) and, in the USA, the Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC). Sub-agents and non-ARC/IATAN agents cannot issue any of their own tickets, but must purchase them all from other agencies, wholesalers, or the airlines. Since the basic qualifications for ARC and IATAN appointment are proof of financial means and ticketing experience, non-ARC/IATAN agents are, by definition, inexperienced, under-financed, or both.

If you have any doubt, you should try to check directly with the airlines, immediately before paying for your tickets, to make sure that you are holding confirmed reservations. This is not always possible, as some of your flights may be on airlines that have no representation in the country in which you are buying your tickets. (Don't try to request seat assignments or other special services, or enter frequent flyer numbers, until after you have your tickets in hand. Just verify that you have reservations on the flights you want. Some special prices forbid or restrict things like advance seat assignments or frequent flyer mileage credit, and by requesting such things prior to ticketing you could cause your reservations to be canceled or render your reservations ineligible for the special fare.) If a travel agent has placed you on a waiting list, you may be able to improve your chances of getting confirmed by calling the airline yourself to ask them to confirm you from the waiting list. Do not be surprised, and do not argue, if the airline mentions that the reservation was made by an agency other than the one you dealt with. It may have been necessary or required for your agent to make the booking through a wholesaler either as a condition of the fare or to use "block" space held by another agent or wholesaler on an otherwise sold-out flight.
Title: Life Insurance Fraud
Post by: graft on February 23, 2009, 07:42:12 PM

Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthousiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etcetera).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult."

So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.

Not surprisingly, Amway itself states that it is not a cult:

- I've heard rumors that Amway is a cult. Is this true?
- No, Amway Corporation is a business and, similar to other large and established companies, has a distinct environment defined by shared business goals. Shared business philosophies should not be misinterpreted as a cult.

As a part of a group of companies whose most recent fiscal year global sales totaled $4.5 billion and which manufacture and distribute quality products and services, Amway offers a business opportunity that is open to all, regardless of religious beliefs, race or gender. Amway really is a microcosm of the world, with more than 3.6 million entrepreneurs worldwide representing nearly every culture, ethnic background, and political and religious belief finding in the Amway business a way to meet their goals.

While unique as individuals, Amway IBOs share a desire to succeed in a business of their own and recognize Amway as an excellent opportunity to achieve their goals. New IBOs receive training, motivation and support in building independent businesses, and are rewarded for their achievements.

A close look at Amway will reveal that any reference to Amway as a cult is incorrect.

In an unrelated issue, Amway has been the subject of a legal fight on charges of spreading rumors about competitor Procter & Gamble's alleged involvement with Satanism. But court records show that such rumors were spread by a small number of independent, indivdual Amway distributors. Moreover, as a lawyer for Amway pointed out, "Those individuals did nothing more than the thousands of other people who innocently talked about a rumor that they did not know at the time to be false. And the Amway distributors promptly retracted and denounced the message once they learned that it was false."


American Express, Primerica and a hell of other companies are nothing else but MLM pyramid schemes. Basically they work like this: before you can make a dime you have to work through 50 hours of training and make a handful of presentations. You have to shadow a higher-up member to learn from them. During all of this time you make no money. You still won't make any money until you harass some poor American into buying life insurance from you.

That's right, you're a non-paid insurance salesman! As if being an insurance salesman wasn't the worst job in the world already (along with used car salesman), now you're an unpaid one. These companies really know how to screw people. Oh, you have to pay some $199 "application fee." That's right, you have to pay THEM to work, when they're supposed to pay YOU to work. If this doesn't scream RIP OFF then I don't know what does. If that wasn't enough, you also have to recruit 8 of your friends. EIGHT! Not only are they despicable enough for bringing you in (dishonestly) but you'll also have to con 8 of your friends to join this group of hell as well. You don't want to invite even your worst enemies to this horrendous gathering of creeps and crooks.

These companies are as multi-level marketing schemes -- basically agents in the company make money off of each new recruit that ponies up the $199 fee and becomes a member. They use dishonest recruiting practices targeted at unemployed and uneducated people who have to pay to work and won't even see any money in return until after 40 hours with the company. Even then, they are still guaranteed no money until they con hard working Americans (with real jobs) into buying insurance from you. I am amazed that the government has not destroyed these companies and put those responsible in prison.
Title: Re: Life Insurance Fraud
Post by: leadhu me token on February 27, 2009, 12:30:23 PM

American Express, Primerica and a hell of other companies are nothing else but MLM pyramid schemes. Basically they work like this: before you can make a dime you have to work through 50 hours of training and make a handful of presentations. You have to shadow a higher-up member to learn from them. During all of this time you make no money. You still won't make any money until you harass some poor American into buying life insurance from you.

That's right, you're a non-paid insurance salesman! As if being an insurance salesman wasn't the worst job in the world already (along with used car salesman), now you're an unpaid one. These companies really know how to screw people. Oh, you have to pay some $199 "application fee." That's right, you have to pay THEM to work, when they're supposed to pay YOU to work. If this doesn't scream RIP OFF then I don't know what does. If that wasn't enough, you also have to recruit 8 of your friends. EIGHT! Not only are they despicable enough for bringing you in (dishonestly) but you'll also have to con 8 of your friends to join this group of hell as well. You don't want to invite even your worst enemies to this horrendous gathering of creeps and crooks.

These companies are as multi-level marketing schemes -- basically agents in the company make money off of each new recruit that ponies up the $199 fee and becomes a member. They use dishonest recruiting practices targeted at unemployed and uneducated people who have to pay to work and won't even see any money in return until after 40 hours with the company. Even then, they are still guaranteed no money until they con hard working Americans (with real jobs) into buying insurance from you. I am amazed that the government has not destroyed these companies and put those responsible in prison.


Here it is a site complaining about AmEx Fin Adv.

http://www.amexsux.com/
Title: A World Without Money
Post by: valeorbrole on March 03, 2009, 12:43:23 PM

A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can.


Communism is the negation of capitalism. A movement produced by the development and very success of the capitalist mode of production which will end by overthrowing it and giving birth to a new kind of society. In place of a world based on the wages system and commodities must come into being a world where human activity will never again take the form of wage labor and where the products of such activity will no longer be objects of commerce. Communism does not overthrow capital in order to restore commodities to their original state. Commodity exchange is a link and a progress. But it is a link between antagonistic parts. It will disappear without there being a return to barter, that primitive form of exchange. Humanity will no longer be divided into opposed groups or into enterprises. It will organise itself to plan and use its common heritage and to share out duties and enjoyments. The logic of sharing will replace the logic of exchange.

That Marx and Engels did not talk more about communist society was due, without doubt paradoxically, to the fact that this society, being less near than it is today, was more difficult to envisage, but also to the fact that it was more present in the minds of the revolutionaries of their day. When they spoke of the abolition of the wages system in the Communist Manifesto they were understood by those they were echoing. Today it is more difficult to envisage a world freed from the state and commodities because these have become omnipresent. But having become omnipresent, they have lost their historical necessity. Marx and Engels perhaps grasped less well than a Fourier the nature of communism as the liberation and harmonisation of the emotions. Fourier, however, does not get away from the wages system, since among other things he still wants doctors to be paid, even if according to the health of the community rather than the illnesses of their patients. According to Marx, with the coming of communism money straight away disappears and the producers cease to exchange their products. Engels speaks of the disappearance of commodity production when socialism comes. 

Proudhon had proposed that property is theft. Proudhon well understood that property does not originate in nature. It is the product of a society where reign relationships of power, violence and the appropriation of the labor of others. It is said that property is theft, while theft is only defined with reference to property; this is to turn round in circles. The problem becomes more complicated when you go on from property to the abolition of property. Should all property, whether involving means of production or personal possessions, be abolished? Should it be done selectively? Should there be a radical break with all property and anything that resembles it? Communism chooses this last proposition. It is not a question of transferring property titles but of the simple disappearance of property. In revolutionary society no-one will be able to 'use and abuse' a good because they are its owner. There will be no exceptions to this rule. Buildings, pins, plots of land will no longer belong to anyone, or if you like, they will belong to everybody. The very idea of property will rapidly be considered absurd.

Will everything then equally belong to everybody? Will the first-comer be able to put me out of my house, take my clothes off me or take bread from out of my mouth just because I will no longer be the owner of my house, my clothes or my food? Certainly not; on the contrary, each person's material and emotional security will be strengthened. It is simply that it will not be the right of property that will be invoked as a protection, but directly the interest of the person concerned. Everybody will have to be able to satisfy their hunger - and be housed and clothed - at their convenience. Everybody will have to be able to live in peace. The right and the sentiment of property will die out in communist society because scarcity will disappear. People will no longer have to cling to an object for fear of not being able to enjoy it any more if they let go of it for a single instant.

There's no magic about it. We will be able to make abundance appear because it is already here under our feet. It is not a question of creating it but simply of liberating it. It is precisely capital, through submitting people and nature to its yoke for many centuries, that has made abundance a possibility. It is not that communism is suddenly going to produce abundance but that capitalism artificially maintains scarcity. In communist societies goods will be freely available and free of charge. The organization of society to its very foundations will be without money. How can we prevent wealth being grasped by some at the expense of others? Won't our society, after a moment of euphoria while people help themselves to existing resources, risk sliding into chaos and inequality before sinking into disorder and terror? In developed communist society the productive forces will be sufficient to meet needs. The frantic and neurotic desire to consume and hoard will disappear. It will be absurd to want to accumulate things: there will no longer be money to be pocketed nor wage-earners to be hired. Why accumulate tins of beans or false teeth which you won't use?

In this new world people will not have to constantly pay and keep accounts in order to feed themselves, travel about or amuse themselves. They will rapidly lose the habit. From this will spring a feeling of being genuinely free. People will feel at home everywhere. Not being constantly under surveillance, they won't be tempted to cheat. Why seek to lie or build up secret stocks when you are certain of being able to have your fill? Gradually the sentiment of property will disappear and will appear retrospectively as somewhat odd and mean. Why cling to an object or a person when the whole world is yours? The new people will resemble their hunting and gathering ancestors who trusted in a nature which supplied them freely and often abundantly with what they needed to live, and who had no worry for the morrow, over which in any case they had no control. For the people of tomorrow, nature will be the world they will have themselves fashioned and the abundance will be created by their own hands. They will be sure of themselves because they will have confidence in their strength and will know their limitations. They will be without worry because they will know that the morrow belongs to them. Death? It exists. But it is pointless crying over what is inevitable. The point is to be in a position to enjoy the present moment.

Money will disappear. It is not a neutral instrument of measurement. It is the commodity in which all other commodities are reflected. Gold, silver and diamonds will no longer have any value apart from that arising from their own utility. Gold can be reserved in accordance with Lenin's wish, for the construction of public lavatories.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on March 04, 2009, 12:50:06 AM
Remember when this thread was about ragging on Cooley, FL Coastal, and such? Good times.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: MaxtoneFour on March 04, 2009, 10:04:19 AM
GET A BETTER CAPTCHA SO THESE SPAMBOTS CAN'T CREATE ACCOUNTS.
Title: The ARPANET and nuclear attacks
Post by: Cleopatras Needle on March 07, 2009, 11:15:39 AM

"Decentralization", "decentered", "distributed", and "horizontal" are to be opposed against "centralization" "centered", "hierarchical", and "vertical". In "Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization" Alex Galloway explains some unique features of the Internet. He says, for instance:

Quote
"... the reason why the Internet would withstand nuclear attack is precisely because its internal protocols are the enemy of bureaucracy, of rigid hierarchy, and of centralization."

He argues that the founding principle of the Net is control, not freedom, and that the controlling power lies in the technical protocols that make network connections (and disconnections) possible. He does this by treating the computer as a textual medium that is based on a technological language, code. Code, he argues, can be subject to the same kind of cultural and literary analysis as any natural language; computer languages have their own syntax, grammar, communities, and cultures. Galloway begins by examining the types of protocols that exist, including TCP/IP, DNS, and HTML. He then looks at examples of resistance and subversion — hackers, viruses, cyberfeminism, Internet art — which he views as emblematic of the larger transformations now taking place within digital culture. When Galloway pulls "A Thousand Plateaus" of the shelf to reveal the politics underlying the Internet's fundamental TCP/IP protocols he's upgrading Deleuze and Guattari's theory for use in the field, so we can apply their radical philosophy to the e-mail and chat applications we design and deploy.


In other words, whereas the tree seeks to establish itself and say "to be," the rhizome is always rearranging interconnections, saying "and, and, and, and...".


A common semi-myth about the ARPANET states that it was designed to be resistant to nuclear attack. The Internet Society writes about the merger of technical ideas that produced the ARPANET in A Brief History of the Internet, and states in a note:

Quote
It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks.

The ARPANET was designed to survive network losses, but the main reason was actually that the switching nodes and network links were not highly reliable, even without any nuclear attacks. Charles Herzfeld, ARPA director from 1965 to 1967, speaks about limited computer resources helping to spur ARPANET's creation:

Quote
The ARPANET was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was clearly a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. Rather, the ARPANET came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: in_plain_english on March 17, 2009, 04:57:12 PM

Speaking of fire, are you guys following the horrific Australian fires story?

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3851/4545574725xq8.jpg)

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1931/14872046nl0.png)

The death toll from fires in southern Australia has reached at least 108, the worst in the country's history. Thousands of firefighters, aided by the army, are battling several major bush fires, and the number of dead is expected to rise as fires are put out. Arsonists responsible for lighting the fires could be charged with murder, police have said. Entire towns in Victoria state were destroyed as fires were fanned by extreme temperatures and wind. Temperatures are dropping now, but officials fear they will not be able to get the fires under control until there is substantial rain. "We could still have a lot worse," said Sharon Smee of Victoria's Country Fire Authority. "There's still hot spots out there and there's a lot of people who are really exhausted and tired."

'Absolutely horrific'

Firefighters have been battling against what are described as the worst conditions in Victoria's history. Witnesses described seeing walls of flames four storeys high, trees exploding and the skies raining ash, as fires tore across 30,000 hectares (115 sq miles) of forests, farmland and towns. John Coleridge from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne said most of those rescued from the fires had suffered burns. "They range from minor, just the soles of their feet running away through embers, to people who've got major, life-threatening burns," he said. "And unfortunately there are some people who will not survive." The BBC's Nick Bryant in Sydney said police suspect that in at least one case fires have been restarted by arsonists after being extinguished by firefighters. New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees said arsonists faced a maximum 25 years' jail. "We will throw the book at you if you are caught," he was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency. "Some of these fires have started in localities that could only be by hand, it could not be natural causes," Victoria state Police Deputy Commissioner Kieran Walshe was quoted as saying by AFP. He said there would be a "full, thorough investigation".

At least 700 homes have been destroyed in Victoria and about 14,000 homes are without power. Most of the people who died came from a cluster of small towns to the north of Melbourne. The BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney said many charred bodies had been found in cars. It is thought they were trying to escape the fires but were overtaken by their "sheer speed and ferocity". Some cars appeared to have crashed into one another as people tried to flee the flames. Victoria Country Fire Authority said the death toll had risen to 108. At least 18 people were reported to have died in the town of Kinglake, four at Wandong, four at St Andrews and three at Strathewen. One Strathewen resident told ABC local radio how people had witnessed "absolutely horrific" scenes as they had helped battle the flames. "The school's gone, the hall's gone... some people left it too late. We've lost friends, and we're just waiting for more - children, loved ones," she said.

The town of Marysville, with about 500 residents, was said to have been burned to the ground, though most residents managed to shelter from the blaze in a local park. In Kinglake, where witnesses said most of the town was destroyed, one woman quoted by the Melbourne Age described the arrival of a badly burnt man and his daughter seeking shelter on a patch of open ground. "He had skin hanging off him everywhere and his little girl was burnt, but not as badly as her dad, and he just came down and he said 'Look, I've lost my wife, I've lost my other kid, I just need you to save [my daughter],'" she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7877178.stm

(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7378/09020901australiafirebidb7.jpg)




What's the point of posting on Austrian fires on this board? Totally unrelated!
Title: Marx: Money Must Go
Post by: vstrnn on March 21, 2009, 04:54:41 PM

Communism is the negation of capitalism. A movement produced by the development and very success of the capitalist mode of production which will end by overthrowing it and giving birth to a new kind of society. In place of a world based on the wages system and commodities must come into being a world where human activity will never again take the form of wage labor and where the products of such activity will no longer be objects of commerce. Communism does not overthrow capital in order to restore commodities to their original state. Commodity exchange is a link and a progress. But it is a link between antagonistic parts. It will disappear without there being a return to barter, that primitive form of exchange. Humanity will no longer be divided into opposed groups or into enterprises. It will organise itself to plan and use its common heritage and to share out duties and enjoyments. The logic of sharing will replace the logic of exchange.

That Marx and Engels did not talk more about communist society was due, without doubt paradoxically, to the fact that this society, being less near than it is today, was more difficult to envisage, but also to the fact that it was more present in the minds of the revolutionaries of their day. When they spoke of the abolition of the wages system in the Communist Manifesto they were understood by those they were echoing. Today it is more difficult to envisage a world freed from the state and commodities because these have become omnipresent. But having become omnipresent, they have lost their historical necessity. Marx and Engels perhaps grasped less well than a Fourier the nature of communism as the liberation and harmonisation of the emotions. Fourier, however, does not get away from the wages system, since among other things he still wants doctors to be paid, even if according to the health of the community rather than the illnesses of their patients. According to Marx, with the coming of communism money straight away disappears and the producers cease to exchange their products. Engels speaks of the disappearance of commodity production when socialism comes. 

Proudhon had proposed that property is theft. Proudhon well understood that property does not originate in nature. It is the product of a society where reign relationships of power, violence and the appropriation of the labor of others. It is said that property is theft, while theft is only defined with reference to property; this is to turn round in circles. The problem becomes more complicated when you go on from property to the abolition of property. Should all property, whether involving means of production or personal possessions, be abolished? Should it be done selectively? Should there be a radical break with all property and anything that resembles it? Communism chooses this last proposition. It is not a question of transferring property titles but of the simple disappearance of property. In revolutionary society no-one will be able to 'use and abuse' a good because they are its owner. There will be no exceptions to this rule. Buildings, pins, plots of land will no longer belong to anyone, or if you like, they will belong to everybody. The very idea of property will rapidly be considered absurd.

Will everything then equally belong to everybody? Will the first-comer be able to put me out of my house, take my clothes off me or take bread from out of my mouth just because I will no longer be the owner of my house, my clothes or my food? Certainly not; on the contrary, each person's material and emotional security will be strengthened. It is simply that it will not be the right of property that will be invoked as a protection, but directly the interest of the person concerned. Everybody will have to be able to satisfy their hunger - and be housed and clothed - at their convenience. Everybody will have to be able to live in peace. The right and the sentiment of property will die out in communist society because scarcity will disappear. People will no longer have to cling to an object for fear of not being able to enjoy it any more if they let go of it for a single instant.

There's no magic about it. We will be able to make abundance appear because it is already here under our feet. It is not a question of creating it but simply of liberating it. It is precisely capital, through submitting people and nature to its yoke for many centuries, that has made abundance a possibility. It is not that communism is suddenly going to produce abundance but that capitalism artificially maintains scarcity. In communist societies goods will be freely available and free of charge. The organization of society to its very foundations will be without money. How can we prevent wealth being grasped by some at the expense of others? Won't our society, after a moment of euphoria while people help themselves to existing resources, risk sliding into chaos and inequality before sinking into disorder and terror? In developed communist society the productive forces will be sufficient to meet needs. The frantic and neurotic desire to consume and hoard will disappear. It will be absurd to want to accumulate things: there will no longer be money to be pocketed nor wage-earners to be hired. Why accumulate tins of beans or false teeth which you won't use?

In this new world people will not have to constantly pay and keep accounts in order to feed themselves, travel about or amuse themselves. They will rapidly lose the habit. From this will spring a feeling of being genuinely free. People will feel at home everywhere. Not being constantly under surveillance, they won't be tempted to cheat. Why seek to lie or build up secret stocks when you are certain of being able to have your fill? Gradually the sentiment of property will disappear and will appear retrospectively as somewhat odd and mean. Why cling to an object or a person when the whole world is yours? The new people will resemble their hunting and gathering ancestors who trusted in a nature which supplied them freely and often abundantly with what they needed to live, and who had no worry for the morrow, over which in any case they had no control. For the people of tomorrow, nature will be the world they will have themselves fashioned and the abundance will be created by their own hands. They will be sure of themselves because they will have confidence in their strength and will know their limitations. They will be without worry because they will know that the morrow belongs to them. Death? It exists. But it is pointless crying over what is inevitable. The point is to be in a position to enjoy the present moment.

Money will disappear. It is not a neutral instrument of measurement. It is the commodity in which all other commodities are reflected. Gold, silver and diamonds will no longer have any value apart from that arising from their own utility. Gold can be reserved in accordance with Lenin's wish, for the construction of public lavatories.


Here it's a related piece on the issue:

www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/overview/money.pdf
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: rider on March 22, 2009, 04:13:47 PM

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7469/rhizomeal6.jpg)

Gilles Deleuze (who ironically committed suicide throwing himself from a high-rise buiding) and Félix Guattari used the term "rhizome" to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. In "A Thousand Plateaus," they opposed it to an arborescent conception of knowledge, which worked with dualist categories and binary choices. A rhizome works with horizontal and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. Their use of the "orchid and the wasp" was taken from the biological concept of mutualism, in which two different species interact together to form a multiplicity (i.e. a unity that is multiple in itself). Horizontal gene transfer would also be a good illustration.


Don't you think this is more of a phantasy, rant-and-rave sort of thing?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: soft power on April 14, 2009, 07:59:33 AM


(http://www.fathom.com/course/21701735/networks.jpg)

- The all-channel or full-matrix network, as in a collaborative network of militant peace groups where everybody is connected to everybody else.

Each node in the diagrams may refer to an individual, a group, an organization, part of a group or organization, or even a state. The nodes may be large or small, tightly or loosely coupled, and inclusive or exclusive in membership. They may be segmentary or specialized -- that is, they may look alike and engage in similar activities, or they may undertake a division of labor based on specialization. The boundaries of the network, or of any node included in it, may be well-defined or blurred and porous in relation to the outside environment. Many variations are possible. Of the three network types, the all-channel has been the most difficult to organize and sustain, partly because it may require dense communications. But it is the type that gives the network form its new, high potential for collaborative undertakings and that is gaining new strength from the information revolution. Pictorially, an all-channel netwar actor resembles a geodesic "Bucky ball" (named for Buckminster Fuller); it does not look like a pyramid. The organizational design is flat. gle, central leadership, command or headquarters -- no precise heart or head that can be targeted. The network as a whole (but not necessarily each node) has little to no hierarchy; there may be multiple leaders. Decision-making and operations are decentralized, allowing for local initiative and autonomy. Thus the design may sometimes appear acephalous (headless), and at other times polycephalous (Hydra-headed)


I see another poster, in jest, has called this type the "all-Satan" network ... what attracted my attention though is the fact how a "headless" (when so) network can function at all.. I mean, theoretically the way the network is supposed to function may sound great, but in practice does it really work out?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: mountain dew on April 15, 2009, 09:24:15 AM

[...]

[...] The problems created by institutionalization center on the fact that any system must constantly renew itself if it is to survive. This is true for an individual, an organization, or a civilization. All systems are subject to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropic principle that a closed system will move from a state of order to disorder. But human beings and our social systems are open -- not closed systems -- meaning that they can resist entropy, at least temporarily, by ingesting energy from our environments. For any system to remain vibrant, it must constantly renew itself in a constantly changing universe. But such renewal can occur only by the system undergoing change, moving in the direction of a more orderly condition. Such demands run counter to institutional demands for stability, security, and equilibrium.

[...]


(http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1972/ab230924fa4d9eac5e5e8d5.jpg)

A raw egg exemplifies the asymmetry of time: a fresh one breaks easily, but a broken one does not spontaneously put itself together again, for the simple reason that there are more ways to be broken than not. In physics jargon, the broken egg has a higher entropy.

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: I Create Therefore I Am on April 15, 2009, 10:27:01 AM
Hahaha - you are so funny, mountain!

I know what ya mean!

;)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: r o a m on April 20, 2009, 09:22:59 AM

Hahaha - you are so funny, mountain!

I know what ya mean!

;)


Any clarification, I Create?!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: cconnoll on April 20, 2009, 06:35:56 PM
Would anybody avoid Cal Western @ all costs? Im strongly considering attedning, but cant get one ounce of good feedback off TLS.com
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: prima materia on May 05, 2009, 12:27:33 PM

[...]

Gulf Arab states - among the world's largest oil and gas producers - are considering nuclear power as they look to meet escalating domestic electricity demand without burning more fuel and eating into record export revenues. Analysts say they could quickly buy the technology they need, and push through the planning, financing and licensing much more quickly than would be the case in more democratic countries. Even so, Rogner said he doubted a nuclear power plant would be up and running in the Gulf before 2020. Sellers of nuclear technology might be eager for the business, but they would also be reluctant to see their product used without a fully developed industry framework in place, Rogner said. "Vendors would also be concerned," said Rogner. "They don't want their technology to be associated with any of the risks. [Gulf countries] will have to regulate and oversee a plant even if it is operated by an international operator." For that you need nuclear engineers. But there are currently no universities in the region that teach nuclear engineering, Rogner said.

The IAEA is working with the GCC on the basic requirements for nuclear power, Rogner said. It is also working with the individual countries of the GCC. The economic arguments for nuclear power in the region stack up, he said. "It is simple. If you can sell the oil for $90 rather than sticking it into your own power plant, you can make a profit that can easily help finance a nuclear power plant." When the GCC said in 2006 it was studying developing a joint nuclear energy programme, the announcement raised concern of a regional arms race between the bloc and Iran. The US and other western governments accuse Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies. Unlike Iran, GCC countries have proposed uranium enrichment be undertaken in a neutral country, limiting some of the potential crossover with a nuclear arms development programme. For the IAEA, the best way forward for the nuclear industry in the region is with a GCC-wide agreement, rather than for individual countries to go their own way, Rogner said. Such an approach would encourage transparency and mutual trust between the region's states, he said. If the countries go ahead on their own, the UAE probably has the edge over the rest of the Gulf Arab states after signing a nuclear cooperation deal with the French government earlier this month, Rogner said. 


Considering nuclear power to meet escalating domestic electricity demand without burning more fuel? Gimme a break! This is just an excuse to become one of the countries with the capability to produce the atomic bomb!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on May 05, 2009, 04:17:36 PM
Would anybody avoid Cal Western @ all costs? Im strongly considering attedning, but cant get one ounce of good feedback off TLS.com

Getting any sort of scholarship?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: cconnoll on May 05, 2009, 08:39:14 PM
Would anybody avoid Cal Western @ all costs? Im strongly considering attedning, but cant get one ounce of good feedback off TLS.com

Getting any sort of scholarship?

Unfortunately not. Potentially next year.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on May 05, 2009, 09:12:11 PM
Would anybody avoid Cal Western @ all costs? Im strongly considering attedning, but cant get one ounce of good feedback off TLS.com

Getting any sort of scholarship?

Unfortunately not. Potentially next year.

Any chance of doing better on an LSAT retake? I don't think Cal Western would be worth it at sticker.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: LawDog3 on May 05, 2009, 09:52:42 PM
You forgot Florida A & M, aka FAMU. I disagree on Golden Gate.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: LawDog3 on May 05, 2009, 10:16:40 PM
To the Tier 1-3 students who are so insecure about themselves as to come onto a board and attempt to belittle what others have worked hard to achieve: Enjoy loneliness.  You will not be successful with that attitude, I assure you.  Your personality wins over people, NOT your LSAT, GPA, class rank, etc.  These mean absolutely zero in the end.  What matters is your passion, passing of the Bar, and treatment of others (clients, employees alike).  Its sad to see so many that have the opportunity to go these great institutions waste it with their attitude and lack or respect for their future fellow attorney.  Some of you are in school to defend invalids and people who did not have the learning capacity to even attend college, and here you are lashing out at someone for sitting at a tier 4 law school.  I wish that these few would consider themselves privileged rather than immortal.  I also recommend changing your attitude, otherwise you may find yourself the one working for that tier 4 grad that so graciously appreciated his/her opportunities. 

I do agree with this. LSAT and career potential do not correlate. T4 schools are geared towards working adults, second career adults, cops, entertainers, and people who may not need to practice law as a career, but use law in the course of their careers. And the streets are littered with Harvard grads who thought their shyt didn't stink. lol.

But, you know who's really stupid? Hill Harper! He went to Harvard Law so he could become a Hollywood actor and "know how to read contracts and act as his own lawyer". He could have gone to Cal Western for that. On second thought, I'm sure Harvard is paid for with his million$ from tv and movies, and he can still go be a BigLawyer if he so chooses. I guess he's not THAT dumb. lol.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: LawDog3 on May 05, 2009, 10:38:12 PM

I don't know what this dumbass' problem is, but I know people who attended non-ABA accredited law schools in AL and CA who are making six figures. 


yea right ..

It's possible. Maybe they didn't get a BigLaw job on Wall Street right out of school, but if they worked hard enough and built a nice clientele, and/or used their business skills, they might be doing it. And people forget, T14 grads (and those from a few other schools) have the monopoly on grad-level or law school academia jobs, but every other law grad can realistically teach undergrad at a major university and make $70K-$100K+. And there are folks who do that. If you're able to do something else on the side, there's your six figures.   
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on May 05, 2009, 11:36:46 PM
To the Tier 1-3 students who are so insecure about themselves as to come onto a board and attempt to belittle what others have worked hard to achieve: Enjoy loneliness.  You will not be successful with that attitude, I assure you.  Your personality wins over people, NOT your LSAT, GPA, class rank, etc.  These mean absolutely zero in the end.  What matters is your passion, passing of the Bar, and treatment of others (clients, employees alike).  Its sad to see so many that have the opportunity to go these great institutions waste it with their attitude and lack or respect for their future fellow attorney.  Some of you are in school to defend invalids and people who did not have the learning capacity to even attend college, and here you are lashing out at someone for sitting at a tier 4 law school.  I wish that these few would consider themselves privileged rather than immortal.  I also recommend changing your attitude, otherwise you may find yourself the one working for that tier 4 grad that so graciously appreciated his/her opportunities. 

I do agree with this. LSAT and career potential do not correlate. T4 schools are geared towards working adults, second career adults, cops, entertainers, and people who may not need to practice law as a career, but use law in the course of their careers. And the streets are littered with Harvard grads who thought their shyt didn't stink. lol.

But, you know who's really stupid? Hill Harper! He went to Harvard Law so he could become a Hollywood actor and "know how to read contracts and act as his own lawyer". He could have gone to Cal Western for that. On second thought, I'm sure Harvard is paid for with his million$ from tv and movies, and he can still go be a BigLawyer if he so chooses. I guess he's not THAT dumb. lol.

T4s aren't geared towards working adults, etc., they're geared towards people with bad LSATs and GPAs to match. That's why virtually every T4 and a good chunk of the T3 is a 2 1/2 - 3 year bar prep course.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: LawDog3 on May 06, 2009, 12:28:17 AM
To the Tier 1-3 students who are so insecure about themselves as to come onto a board and attempt to belittle what others have worked hard to achieve: Enjoy loneliness.  You will not be successful with that attitude, I assure you.  Your personality wins over people, NOT your LSAT, GPA, class rank, etc.  These mean absolutely zero in the end.  What matters is your passion, passing of the Bar, and treatment of others (clients, employees alike).  Its sad to see so many that have the opportunity to go these great institutions waste it with their attitude and lack or respect for their future fellow attorney.  Some of you are in school to defend invalids and people who did not have the learning capacity to even attend college, and here you are lashing out at someone for sitting at a tier 4 law school.  I wish that these few would consider themselves privileged rather than immortal.  I also recommend changing your attitude, otherwise you may find yourself the one working for that tier 4 grad that so graciously appreciated his/her opportunities. 

I do agree with this. LSAT and career potential do not correlate. T4 schools are geared towards working adults, second career adults, cops, entertainers, and people who may not need to practice law as a career, but use law in the course of their careers. And the streets are littered with Harvard grads who thought their shyt didn't stink. lol.

But, you know who's really stupid? Hill Harper! He went to Harvard Law so he could become a Hollywood actor and "know how to read contracts and act as his own lawyer". He could have gone to Cal Western for that. On second thought, I'm sure Harvard is paid for with his million$ from tv and movies, and he can still go be a BigLawyer if he so chooses. I guess he's not THAT dumb. lol.

T4s aren't geared towards working adults, etc., they're geared towards people with bad LSATs and GPAs to match. That's why virtually every T4 and a good chunk of the T3 is a 2 1/2 - 3 year bar prep course.

Ok...working adults with suck-ass LSAT's and grades then...lol.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on May 06, 2009, 01:21:04 AM
To the Tier 1-3 students who are so insecure about themselves as to come onto a board and attempt to belittle what others have worked hard to achieve: Enjoy loneliness.  You will not be successful with that attitude, I assure you.  Your personality wins over people, NOT your LSAT, GPA, class rank, etc.  These mean absolutely zero in the end.  What matters is your passion, passing of the Bar, and treatment of others (clients, employees alike).  Its sad to see so many that have the opportunity to go these great institutions waste it with their attitude and lack or respect for their future fellow attorney.  Some of you are in school to defend invalids and people who did not have the learning capacity to even attend college, and here you are lashing out at someone for sitting at a tier 4 law school.  I wish that these few would consider themselves privileged rather than immortal.  I also recommend changing your attitude, otherwise you may find yourself the one working for that tier 4 grad that so graciously appreciated his/her opportunities. 

I do agree with this. LSAT and career potential do not correlate. T4 schools are geared towards working adults, second career adults, cops, entertainers, and people who may not need to practice law as a career, but use law in the course of their careers. And the streets are littered with Harvard grads who thought their shyt didn't stink. lol.

But, you know who's really stupid? Hill Harper! He went to Harvard Law so he could become a Hollywood actor and "know how to read contracts and act as his own lawyer". He could have gone to Cal Western for that. On second thought, I'm sure Harvard is paid for with his million$ from tv and movies, and he can still go be a BigLawyer if he so chooses. I guess he's not THAT dumb. lol.

T4s aren't geared towards working adults, etc., they're geared towards people with bad LSATs and GPAs to match. That's why virtually every T4 and a good chunk of the T3 is a 2 1/2 - 3 year bar prep course.

Ok...working adults with suck-ass LSAT's and grades then...lol.

Much better, thank you. :)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: cconnoll on May 06, 2009, 09:24:13 AM
Would anybody avoid Cal Western @ all costs? Im strongly considering attedning, but cant get one ounce of good feedback off TLS.com

Getting any sort of scholarship?

Unfortunately not. Potentially next year.

Any chance of doing better on an LSAT retake? I don't think Cal Western would be worth it at sticker.










Honestly, i spent 6 months studying balls out for the test. I had a good study buddy and we were each getting 158's-low 160's...On test day, section 2 I had to piss SOO bad towards the end of the section. I ended up missing the last 8 straight questions on the test. This is the reason I have a 154 IMO. I really don't want to postpone my education for a year so I can attempt to retake the test. Although, I know how minimal a year, and in the long run it probably is the most prudent choice.....

 honestly @#!* the LSATS, and to some degree GPA's. I understand schools having to report those numbers, but I have visited one-on-one in person with multiple 1L/2L's @ Miami, UofOregon, ASU, Chapman, Cal Western @ their school, and many of them (while they may have been bored with my pre-1L questions) could not hold/keep up with the conversation...maybe Im way off base here though..
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on May 06, 2009, 01:14:49 PM
Would anybody avoid Cal Western @ all costs? Im strongly considering attedning, but cant get one ounce of good feedback off TLS.com

Getting any sort of scholarship?

Unfortunately not. Potentially next year.

Any chance of doing better on an LSAT retake? I don't think Cal Western would be worth it at sticker.










Honestly, i spent 6 months studying balls out for the test. I had a good study buddy and we were each getting 158's-low 160's...On test day, section 2 I had to piss SOO bad towards the end of the section. I ended up missing the last 8 straight questions on the test. This is the reason I have a 154 IMO. I really don't want to postpone my education for a year so I can attempt to retake the test. Although, I know how minimal a year, and in the long run it probably is the most prudent choice.....

 honestly @#!* the LSATS, and to some degree GPA's. I understand schools having to report those numbers, but I have visited one-on-one in person with multiple 1L/2L's @ Miami, UofOregon, ASU, Chapman, Cal Western @ their school, and many of them (while they may have been bored with my pre-1L questions) could not hold/keep up with the conversation...maybe Im way off base here though..

154, how's your GPA? That's a decent enough LSAT and you should be able to get into a much better school than Cal Western unless your grades are really bad.

You'll find raw intelligence and conversational abilities have little to do with success in law school past a certain point.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: cconnoll on May 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM
3.1 GPA. 2.5 GPA frosh & sophomore year. 3.7 GPA junior & senior year. So yes, in the context of prospective 0L's, my numbers are less than sub-par.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Ninja1 on May 06, 2009, 09:24:24 PM
3.1 GPA. 2.5 GPA frosh & sophomore year. 3.7 GPA junior & senior year. So yes, in the context of prospective 0L's, my numbers are less than sub-par.

Not great, but not absolutely horrid. Just at a quick glance, you'd be competitive at both of the Arkansas', Florida International, Michigan State (at least more respectable than Cal Western even if not cheaper), North Dakota (ND is actually a nice place once you get past the snow), Oklahoma City (they'd probably give you a scholarship for your LSAT), Syracuse (see MSU explanation), and Tula (see OKC explanation).

Unless you really want to be in CA and you're ok eating the debt at Cal Western, I'd say apply to at least some of these schools if it's still possible and consider reapplying next year and maybe taking one more stab at the LSAT.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Routing No. on May 14, 2009, 09:41:50 AM

[...]

Gulf Arab states - among the world's largest oil and gas producers - are considering nuclear power as they look to meet escalating domestic electricity demand without burning more fuel and eating into record export revenues. Analysts say they could quickly buy the technology they need, and push through the planning, financing and licensing much more quickly than would be the case in more democratic countries. Even so, Rogner said he doubted a nuclear power plant would be up and running in the Gulf before 2020. Sellers of nuclear technology might be eager for the business, but they would also be reluctant to see their product used without a fully developed industry framework in place, Rogner said. "Vendors would also be concerned," said Rogner. "They don't want their technology to be associated with any of the risks. [Gulf countries] will have to regulate and oversee a plant even if it is operated by an international operator." For that you need nuclear engineers. But there are currently no universities in the region that teach nuclear engineering, Rogner said.

The IAEA is working with the GCC on the basic requirements for nuclear power, Rogner said. It is also working with the individual countries of the GCC. The economic arguments for nuclear power in the region stack up, he said. "It is simple. If you can sell the oil for $90 rather than sticking it into your own power plant, you can make a profit that can easily help finance a nuclear power plant." When the GCC said in 2006 it was studying developing a joint nuclear energy programme, the announcement raised concern of a regional arms race between the bloc and Iran. The US and other western governments accuse Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies. Unlike Iran, GCC countries have proposed uranium enrichment be undertaken in a neutral country, limiting some of the potential crossover with a nuclear arms development programme. For the IAEA, the best way forward for the nuclear industry in the region is with a GCC-wide agreement, rather than for individual countries to go their own way, Rogner said. Such an approach would encourage transparency and mutual trust between the region's states, he said. If the countries go ahead on their own, the UAE probably has the edge over the rest of the Gulf Arab states after signing a nuclear cooperation deal with the French government earlier this month, Rogner said. 


Considering nuclear power to meet escalating domestic electricity demand without burning more fuel? Gimme a break! This is just an excuse to become one of the countries with the capability to produce the atomic bomb!


In France about 77% of the country's electricity comes from nuclear power. Lithuania comes in second, with an impressive 65%. Lithuania is not, and it will never be a "nuclear power" state!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: theme on May 15, 2009, 08:14:59 AM

[...]

[...] The problems created by institutionalization center on the fact that any system must constantly renew itself if it is to survive. This is true for an individual, an organization, or a civilization. All systems are subject to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropic principle that a closed system will move from a state of order to disorder. But human beings and our social systems are open -- not closed systems -- meaning that they can resist entropy, at least temporarily, by ingesting energy from our environments. For any system to remain vibrant, it must constantly renew itself in a constantly changing universe. But such renewal can occur only by the system undergoing change, moving in the direction of a more orderly condition. Such demands run counter to institutional demands for stability, security, and equilibrium.

[...]


(http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1972/ab230924fa4d9eac5e5e8d5.jpg)

A raw egg exemplifies the asymmetry of time: a fresh one breaks easily, but a broken one does not spontaneously put itself together again, for the simple reason that there are more ways to be broken than not. In physics jargon, the broken egg has a higher entropy.



Hahaha - you're so funny, mountain!
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: I Love Therefore I Am on May 15, 2009, 09:04:59 AM

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7469/rhizomeal6.jpg)

Gilles Deleuze (who ironically committed suicide throwing himself from a high-rise buiding) and Félix Guattari used the term "rhizome" to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. In "A Thousand Plateaus," they opposed it to an arborescent conception of knowledge, which worked with dualist categories and binary choices. A rhizome works with horizontal and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. Their use of the "orchid and the wasp" was taken from the biological concept of mutualism, in which two different species interact together to form a multiplicity (i.e. a unity that is multiple in itself). Horizontal gene transfer would also be a good illustration.


Or in other words

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3429/tvog.png)
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: ILEARNEDGOODSTUFF on May 19, 2009, 07:35:14 PM
Ah yes, schools to avoid.  Yes, let's just list random lower-tiered law schools.  I've got some facts for you author.  In Rhode Island and all the surrounding states, Roger Williams University School of Law is way above the average in its passage rates on the Bar Exam.

MA - 93% (tied with Boston College, trailing only Harvard and BU)
NY - 91%
CT - 90%

Overall, 90% of those who took the CT or RI bar exam passed their first time out.  All of these numbers exceed the states' average pass rates.

Finally, RWU Law was just ranked 4th in New England (a region that contains Harvard, Yale, BC, BU, Northeaster, UConn, Quinnipiac, and Suffolk), for the academic and educational accomplishments of our professors.  Please feel free to check out our faculty at http://law.rwu.edu/directory/faculty/default.aspx.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: biblio on May 20, 2009, 09:00:09 AM

Or in other words

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3429/tvog.png)


Interesting diagram, I Love -- did you find it some place, or you sketched it yourself?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: synthetic on May 23, 2009, 09:55:13 AM

(http://www.gsweeny.com/images/port/lawyer.jpg)


Funny illustration - Or should I say, unfortunately-a-not-so-funny one?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Earlady on May 24, 2009, 02:26:22 AM
Why Widener?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Project on May 26, 2009, 09:11:44 AM

In France about 77% of the country's electricity comes from nuclear power. Lithuania comes in second, with an impressive 65%. Lithuania is not, and it will never be a "nuclear power" state!


Nuclear energy originates from the splitting of uranium atoms in a process called fission. Fission releases energy that can be used to make steam, which is used in a turbine to generate electricity. Nuclear power accounts for approximately 19% of the United States' electricity production. More than 100 nuclear generating units are currently in operation in the United States. No nuclear power plants have been built since 1996.

Uranium is a nonrenewable resource that cannot be replenished on a human time scale. Uranium is extracted from open-pit and underground mines. Once mined, the uranium ore is sent to a processing plant to be concentrated into a useful fuel (i.e., uranium oxide pellets). This uranium enrichment process generates radioactive waste. Enriched fuel is then transported to the nuclear power plant. At the power plant, the uranium oxide pellets are bombarded with neutrons, causing the uranium atoms to split and release both heat and neutrons. These neutrons collide with other uranium atoms and to release additional heat and neutrons in a chain reaction. This heat is used to generate steam, which is used by a turbine to generate electricity.

Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides. However, fossil fuel emissions are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant. Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts, build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems. These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life. Although the nuclear reactor is radioactive, the water discharged from the power plant is not considered radioactive because it never comes in contact with radioactive materials. However, waste generated from uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of radioactive uranium.


Every 18 to 24 months, nuclear power plants must shut down to remove and replace the "spent" uranium fuel. This spent fuel has released most of its energy as a result of the fission process and has become radioactive waste. All of the nuclear power plants in the United States together produce about 2,000 metric tons per year of radioactive waste. Currently, the radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear plants at which it is generated, either in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or in above-ground steel or steel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters. The Department of Energy is currently preparing a license application to construct a permanent central repository at Yucca Mountain. If the license is granted, the repository could begin to accept waste by 2012. In addition to the fuel waste, much of the equipment in the nuclear power plants becomes contaminated with radiation and will become radioactive waste after the plant is closed. These wastes will remain radioactive for many thousands of years.
Title: ...birds of a feather...
Post by: overcast on May 29, 2009, 07:43:52 AM

[...]

Gulf Arab states - among the world's largest oil and gas producers - are considering nuclear power as they look to meet escalating domestic electricity demand without burning more fuel and eating into record export revenues. Analysts say they could quickly buy the technology they need, and push through the planning, financing and licensing much more quickly than would be the case in more democratic countries. Even so, Rogner said he doubted a nuclear power plant would be up and running in the Gulf before 2020. Sellers of nuclear technology might be eager for the business, but they would also be reluctant to see their product used without a fully developed industry framework in place, Rogner said. "Vendors would also be concerned," said Rogner. "They don't want their technology to be associated with any of the risks. [Gulf countries] will have to regulate and oversee a plant even if it is operated by an international operator." For that you need nuclear engineers. But there are currently no universities in the region that teach nuclear engineering, Rogner said.

The IAEA is working with the GCC on the basic requirements for nuclear power, Rogner said. It is also working with the individual countries of the GCC. The economic arguments for nuclear power in the region stack up, he said. "It is simple. If you can sell the oil for $90 rather than sticking it into your own power plant, you can make a profit that can easily help finance a nuclear power plant." When the GCC said in 2006 it was studying developing a joint nuclear energy programme, the announcement raised concern of a regional arms race between the bloc and Iran. The US and other western governments accuse Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies. Unlike Iran, GCC countries have proposed uranium enrichment be undertaken in a neutral country, limiting some of the potential crossover with a nuclear arms development programme. For the IAEA, the best way forward for the nuclear industry in the region is with a GCC-wide agreement, rather than for individual countries to go their own way, Rogner said. Such an approach would encourage transparency and mutual trust between the region's states, he said. If the countries go ahead on their own, the UAE probably has the edge over the rest of the Gulf Arab states after signing a nuclear cooperation deal with the French government earlier this month, Rogner said. 


Considering nuclear power to meet escalating domestic electricity demand without burning more fuel? Gimme a break! This is just an excuse to become one of the countries with the capability to produce the atomic bomb!


In France about 77% of the country's electricity comes from nuclear power. Lithuania comes in second, with an impressive 65%. Lithuania is not, and it will never be a "nuclear power" state!


There is an increasing number of people in the United States today who are standing up and speaking out against the dangers of nuclear weapons. At the same time a large number of these people are in favor of the use of nuclear power as a means of generating electricity. They believe, perhaps correctly, that the threat from the former is greater and more imminent, and further, that there is no connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The facts, however, seem to point to a different conclusion.

"Atoms For Peace"

For as long as there has been federal control of nuclear research and materials, there has been an interest in using commercial nuclear reactors as a source of materials to make weapons. A 1951 study undertaken by the AEC concluded that commercial nuclear reactors would not be economically feasible if they were used solely to produce electricity; they would be, however, if they also produced plutonium which could be sold. Utilities themselves were only mildly intrigued with the notion of being able to produce "too cheap to meter electricity," and only so long as someone else took over the responsibility for the waste products, and indemnified them against catastrophic nuclear plant accidents. It was this fact which interested utilities in getting involved with nuclear reactors. This point was again made by the AEC's director of reactor development, Lawrence R. Hafsted, who in 1951 said it was the multi-purpose reactor, "rather than the imminence of cheap civilian power which lies behind the increased interest on the part of industry in certain phases of the atomic energy business."

In 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower, for whatever motives one wishes to ascribe to him, announced his "Atoms for Peace" program, by which the destructive force of the atom was to be harnessed for "peaceful" purposes. It was also at this time that the U.S. began offering nuclear technology and training to the rest of the world. In 1954 utilities which were to operate commercial nuclear reactors were given further incentive when Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act so that utilities would receive uranium fuel for their reactors from the government in exchange for the plutonium produced in those reactors. The plutonium was to be shipped to Rocky Flats in Colorado, where the federal government made plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons. In retrospect it is a simple matter to see that there never was an intention to separate nuclear weapons production from the use of commercial nuclear power.

The Connections

The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: 1. FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.

One Technology

As Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado points out, "Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power." In order to get plutonium for weapons, one needs a reactor, whether it is a "research" reactor (such as the one which provided India with the fissile material for its first atomic bomb) or a commercial reactor. In the case of the proposed "breeder" reactors, in which more plutonium is produced than is consumed, the connection is more obvious. Since the only other use for the highly toxic plutonium is to make weapons, one can easily see where the surplus might be used. Over the years the U.S. Congress has scrapped several "breeder" reactor designs, both because of their high potential for diversion and proliferation of nuclear materials into the hands of undesirable states, and because their designs became flawed, obsolete, or not in demand by nuclear utilities.
Title: Re: The Madoff Ponzi Scheme
Post by: L Liberti on January 10, 2012, 11:04:16 PM

Amway Corporation is among the world's largest and best-known direct sales/multi-level-marketing organizations. (Amway's IBOs - 'Independent Business Owners' - who sell via the Internet instead of offline do so under the name Quixtar). Some sociologists consider many such such organizations to be 'para-religions' - movements that, while they can not be classified as religions, include some religion-like aspects (e.g. enthusiasm for the cause, recruitment and motivational rituals, positive thinking, etc).

Regarding Amway, others go further, claiming that certain recruitment and motivational tactics used within the Amway network make this organization something of a "corporate cult." So-called "corporate cults" are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults.

Amway is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company in which participating sales people can earn extra income by getting others to sign up (rather than merely earn a commission on items sold). Amway produces and sells recruitment literature, audio messages, pep-rallies and incentives to help its sales force bring other distributors on board. It is said that successful Amway distributors make the bulk of their income from these motivational products, rather than from sales of Amway's other products.

It should be noted that often individual distributors become so focused on Amway's promises that they seemingly can think and talk about nothing else. They try to recruit friends, co-workers, fellow church-members, neighbors and just about anyone they meet in order to try and build their 'downline' (sales network). Many people are turned off by such an unhealthy, cult-like, 'devotion' to a business scheme. In addition, many people who join and try to make money by working for Amway (or similar MLM companies) discover that they spend more on marketing-, recruitment and training packages than they earn from actual sales and/or recruitment efforts.


As to pyramid schemes:

Many pyramids are more sophisticated than the simple model. These recognize that recruiting a large number of others into a scheme can be difficult so a seemingly simpler model is used. In this model each person must recruit two others, but the ease of achieving this is offset because the depth required to recoup any money also increases. The scheme requires a person to recruit two others, who must each recruit two others, who must each recruit two others.

(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9586/8ballik0.jpg)
The "8-ball" model contains a total of 15 members. Note that unlike in the picture, the triangular setup in the cue game of eight-ball corresponds to an arithmetic progression 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15. The pyramid scheme in the picture in contrast is a geometric progression 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15.

Prior instances of this scam have been called the "Airplane Game" and the four tiers labelled as "captain", "co-pilot", "crew", and "passenger" to denote a person's level. Such schemes may try to downplay their pyramid nature by referring to themselves as "gifting circles" with money being "gifted". Popular scams such as the "Women Empowering Women" do exactly this. Joiners may even be told that "gifting" is a way to skirt around tax laws.

Whichever euphemism is used, there are 15 total people in four tiers (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 ) in the scheme - the person at the top of this tree is the "captain", the two below are "co-pilots", the four below are "crew" and the bottom eight joiners are the "passengers". The eight passengers must each pay (or "gift") a sum (e.g. $1000) to join the scheme. This sum (e.g. $8000) goes to the captain who leaves, with everyone remaining moving up one tier. There are now two new captains so the group splits in two with each group requiring eight new passengers. A person who joins the scheme as a passenger will not see a return until they exit the scheme as a captain. This requires that 14 others have been persuaded to join underneath them. Therefore, the bottom 3 tiers of the pyramid always lose their money when the scheme finally collapses.


Wow, very interesting, too2, to say the least :)


Consider a pyramid consisting of tiers with 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 members.

(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7822/330pxpyramid8ballfullsvpx9.png)
No matter how large the model becomes before collapse, approximately 88% of all people will lose.

If the scheme collapses at this point, only those in the 1, 2, 4, and 8 got out with a return. The remainder in the 16, 32, and 64 tier lose everything. 112 out of the total 127 members or 88% lost all of their money. During a wave of pyramid activity, a surge frequently develops once a significant fraction of people know someone personally who exited with a $8000 payout for example. This spurs others to seek to get in on one of the many pyramids before the wave collapses. The figures also hide the fact that the confidence trickster would make the lion's share of the money. They would do this by filling in the first 3 tiers (with 1, 2, and 4 people) with phoney names, ensuring they get the first 7 payouts, at 8 times the buy-in sum, without paying a single penny themselves. So if the buy-in were $1000, they would receive $56,000, paid for by the first 56 investors. They would continue to buy in underneath the real investors, and promote and prolong the scheme for as long as possible in order to allow them to skim even more from it before the collapse.

Other cons may also be effective. For example, rather than using fake names, a group of 7 people may agree to form the top 3 layers of a pyramid without investing any money. They then work to recruit 8 paying passengers, and pretend to follow the pyramid payout rules, but in reality split any money received. Ironically, though they are being conned, the 8 paying passengers are not really getting anything less for their money than if they were buying into a 'legitimate' pyramid which had split off from a parent pyramid. They truly are now in a valid pyramid, and have the same opportunity to earn a windfall if they can successfully recruit enough new members and reach captain. This highlights the fact that by 'buying' in to a pyramid, passengers are not really obtaining anything of value they couldn't create themselves other than a vague sense of "legitimacy" or history of the pyramid, which may make it marginally easier to sell passenger seats below them.


Pyramidal schemes are cult-like environments, with those on the top being those who do nothing but lie and win, and the further down you go the more suckers, who lose everything, you find ...

What I wanted to point out, though, is that the hierarchical structure that the current social order entails can well be likened to a pyramidal scheme.
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: 2 young 2 be in debt on January 15, 2012, 01:06:06 AM

Here it is the post by kaps I was talking about - I'm posting two screenshots as the original thread has been suspended


Which posts, L Liberti, the ones commenting on the anal thing? These ones?

Quote
Quote
Quote

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.


So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal


Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!

For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.

Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Will you walk me 2 my car on January 20, 2012, 09:33:32 PM

As to pyramid schemes:

Many pyramids are more sophisticated than the simple model. These recognize that recruiting a large number of others into a scheme can be difficult so a seemingly simpler model is used. In this model each person must recruit two others, but the ease of achieving this is offset because the depth required to recoup any money also increases. The scheme requires a person to recruit two others, who must each recruit two others, who must each recruit two others.

(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9586/8ballik0.jpg)
The "8-ball" model contains a total of 15 members. Note that unlike in the picture, the triangular setup in the cue game of eight-ball corresponds to an arithmetic progression 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15. The pyramid scheme in the picture in contrast is a geometric progression 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15.

Prior instances of this scam have been called the "Airplane Game" and the four tiers labelled as "captain", "co-pilot", "crew", and "passenger" to denote a person's level. Such schemes may try to downplay their pyramid nature by referring to themselves as "gifting circles" with money being "gifted". Popular scams such as the "Women Empowering Women" do exactly this. Joiners may even be told that "gifting" is a way to skirt around tax laws.

Whichever euphemism is used, there are 15 total people in four tiers (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 ) in the scheme - the person at the top of this tree is the "captain", the two below are "co-pilots", the four below are "crew" and the bottom eight joiners are the "passengers". The eight passengers must each pay (or "gift") a sum (e.g. $1000) to join the scheme. This sum (e.g. $8000) goes to the captain who leaves, with everyone remaining moving up one tier. There are now two new captains so the group splits in two with each group requiring eight new passengers. A person who joins the scheme as a passenger will not see a return until they exit the scheme as a captain. This requires that 14 others have been persuaded to join underneath them. Therefore, the bottom 3 tiers of the pyramid always lose their money when the scheme finally collapses.


Wow, very interesting, too2, to say the least :)


Consider a pyramid consisting of tiers with 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 members.

(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7822/330pxpyramid8ballfullsvpx9.png)
No matter how large the model becomes before collapse, approximately 88% of all people will lose.

If the scheme collapses at this point, only those in the 1, 2, 4, and 8 got out with a return. The remainder in the 16, 32, and 64 tier lose everything. 112 out of the total 127 members or 88% lost all of their money. During a wave of pyramid activity, a surge frequently develops once a significant fraction of people know someone personally who exited with a $8000 payout for example. This spurs others to seek to get in on one of the many pyramids before the wave collapses. The figures also hide the fact that the confidence trickster would make the lion's share of the money. They would do this by filling in the first 3 tiers (with 1, 2, and 4 people) with phoney names, ensuring they get the first 7 payouts, at 8 times the buy-in sum, without paying a single penny themselves. So if the buy-in were $1000, they would receive $56,000, paid for by the first 56 investors. They would continue to buy in underneath the real investors, and promote and prolong the scheme for as long as possible in order to allow them to skim even more from it before the collapse.

Other cons may also be effective. For example, rather than using fake names, a group of 7 people may agree to form the top 3 layers of a pyramid without investing any money. They then work to recruit 8 paying passengers, and pretend to follow the pyramid payout rules, but in reality split any money received. Ironically, though they are being conned, the 8 paying passengers are not really getting anything less for their money than if they were buying into a 'legitimate' pyramid which had split off from a parent pyramid. They truly are now in a valid pyramid, and have the same opportunity to earn a windfall if they can successfully recruit enough new members and reach captain. This highlights the fact that by 'buying' in to a pyramid, passengers are not really obtaining anything of value they couldn't create themselves other than a vague sense of "legitimacy" or history of the pyramid, which may make it marginally easier to sell passenger seats below them.


Pyramidal schemes are cult-like environments, with those on the top being those who do nothing but lie and win, and the further down you go the more suckers, who lose everything, you find ...

What I wanted to point out, though, is that the hierarchical structure that the current social order entails can well be likened to a pyramidal scheme.


So basically, when members receive no more benefits (there's no more money to be distributed to the people down the line) the brainwashing kind of thing stops working and the whole pyramidal scheme falls?

Or, to draw another parallel, when oil reserves of the Persian Gulf are denied access to the Western countries, and going to war proves too damn costly in the long run - our economies are bound to collapse, since they are relying on stealing from other countries' resources to keep the standard of living artificially high - all in accordance with the social Darwinism kind of philosophy, that for every a winner there is a loser?
Title: Cult of Scam: why massive scam becomes a cult
Post by: Just Say No! on January 21, 2012, 09:59:43 PM
In massive scams, such as pyramid schemes or Ponzi schemes that involved thousands, perhaps millions of people, believers tend to congregate, and start their own 'support groups', where they start to reinforce each-other's beliefs. With advent of electronic communication, meetings can be held virtually via web forums (i.e. electronic bulletin boards), communication clients such as Internet chat clients, blogs, websites, and so on.

When large groups congregate, some people will dominate through sheer force of personality, even online, and those became the leaders. The result is a "cult of personality." This may or may not be encouraged by the scheme itself, but it certainly will not be discouraged.

Following is a list of signs of a cult:

- Thinking in black and white terms
- Using a new language/cultic jargon (coded language)
- Saying goodbye to all old friends and only seeing people affiliated with, or not critical of the cult
- Creating distance from family, especially during holidays and family events
- Euphoric, yet simultaneously tired and worn
- Humorless
- A change in diet and sleep patterns
- Low on money
- A dismissal of their life prior to involvement with the group as "all bad"
- A change in goals, priorities, and life plan
- Return to child-like behavior
- Dogmatic adherence to new beliefs/ideas, with the inability, or lack of interest to logically assess these new beliefs
- Secrecy

Scheme believers exhibit many of the signs listed above. Scam victims (i.e. scheme believers) are known to abandon friends and family, esp. those who are critical of the scam. They don't want to question the beliefs of the scam:, which is simply, "X is great, X will pay me. (Death to all opponents of X) " They sometimes even give themselves a new group name to increase their group identity (encouraged by the scam).
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: nocreeper on January 22, 2012, 05:30:31 PM
Avoid any school wiht an attrition rate over 5%, especially if that is a rate that stays constant from year to year.  These schools categorically kick out the bottom portions of the class.  They usually have a less sophisticated faculty and staff, poor student support services, and most of the faculty staff see it as a clock in/out job.

I would not say avoid a school based on its tier, but only the attrition rates

I think you forgot Applachain State - they kick out the bottom 15%, but at least the own up to it before you even apply (their website) plus they seem unusually sophisticated for a school like that
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Any questions? on January 23, 2012, 12:10:01 AM

As to pyramid schemes:

Many pyramids are more sophisticated than the simple model. These recognize that recruiting a large number of others into a scheme can be difficult so a seemingly simpler model is used. In this model each person must recruit two others, but the ease of achieving this is offset because the depth required to recoup any money also increases. The scheme requires a person to recruit two others, who must each recruit two others, who must each recruit two others.

(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9586/8ballik0.jpg)
The "8-ball" model contains a total of 15 members. Note that unlike in the picture, the triangular setup in the cue game of eight-ball corresponds to an arithmetic progression 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15. The pyramid scheme in the picture in contrast is a geometric progression 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15.

Prior instances of this scam have been called the "Airplane Game" and the four tiers labelled as "captain", "co-pilot", "crew", and "passenger" to denote a person's level. Such schemes may try to downplay their pyramid nature by referring to themselves as "gifting circles" with money being "gifted". Popular scams such as the "Women Empowering Women" do exactly this. Joiners may even be told that "gifting" is a way to skirt around tax laws.

Whichever euphemism is used, there are 15 total people in four tiers (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 ) in the scheme - the person at the top of this tree is the "captain", the two below are "co-pilots", the four below are "crew" and the bottom eight joiners are the "passengers". The eight passengers must each pay (or "gift") a sum (e.g. $1000) to join the scheme. This sum (e.g. $8000) goes to the captain who leaves, with everyone remaining moving up one tier. There are now two new captains so the group splits in two with each group requiring eight new passengers. A person who joins the scheme as a passenger will not see a return until they exit the scheme as a captain. This requires that 14 others have been persuaded to join underneath them. Therefore, the bottom 3 tiers of the pyramid always lose their money when the scheme finally collapses.


Wow, very interesting, too2, to say the least :)


Consider a pyramid consisting of tiers with 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 members.

(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7822/330pxpyramid8ballfullsvpx9.png)
No matter how large the model becomes before collapse, approximately 88% of all people will lose.

If the scheme collapses at this point, only those in the 1, 2, 4, and 8 got out with a return. The remainder in the 16, 32, and 64 tier lose everything. 112 out of the total 127 members or 88% lost all of their money. During a wave of pyramid activity, a surge frequently develops once a significant fraction of people know someone personally who exited with a $8000 payout for example. This spurs others to seek to get in on one of the many pyramids before the wave collapses. The figures also hide the fact that the confidence trickster would make the lion's share of the money. They would do this by filling in the first 3 tiers (with 1, 2, and 4 people) with phoney names, ensuring they get the first 7 payouts, at 8 times the buy-in sum, without paying a single penny themselves. So if the buy-in were $1000, they would receive $56,000, paid for by the first 56 investors. They would continue to buy in underneath the real investors, and promote and prolong the scheme for as long as possible in order to allow them to skim even more from it before the collapse.

Other cons may also be effective. For example, rather than using fake names, a group of 7 people may agree to form the top 3 layers of a pyramid without investing any money. They then work to recruit 8 paying passengers, and pretend to follow the pyramid payout rules, but in reality split any money received. Ironically, though they are being conned, the 8 paying passengers are not really getting anything less for their money than if they were buying into a 'legitimate' pyramid which had split off from a parent pyramid. They truly are now in a valid pyramid, and have the same opportunity to earn a windfall if they can successfully recruit enough new members and reach captain. This highlights the fact that by 'buying' in to a pyramid, passengers are not really obtaining anything of value they couldn't create themselves other than a vague sense of "legitimacy" or history of the pyramid, which may make it marginally easier to sell passenger seats below them.


Pyramidal schemes are cult-like environments, with those on the top being those who do nothing but lie and win, and the further down you go the more suckers, who lose everything, you find ...

What I wanted to point out, though, is that the hierarchical structure that the current social order entails can well be likened to a pyramidal scheme.


So basically, when members receive no more benefits (there's no more money to be distributed to the people down the line) the brainwashing kind of thing stops working and the whole pyramidal scheme falls?

Or, to draw another parallel, when oil reserves of the Persian Gulf are denied access to the Western countries, and going to war proves too damn costly in the long run - our economies are bound to collapse, since they are relying on stealing from other countries' resources to keep the standard of living artificially high - all in accordance with the social Darwinism kind of philosophy, that for every a winner there is a loser?


Will you walk me to your car, could you expand a bit on this other parallel you draw?
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: breach of contract on January 27, 2012, 06:13:45 PM

Here it is the post by kaps I was talking about - I'm posting two screenshots as the original thread has been suspended


Which posts, L Liberti, the ones commenting on the anal thing? These ones?

Quote
Quote
Quote

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.


So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal


Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!

For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.


Here it is a short primer on the Anal Stage:

As the physical ability to control the outer anal sphincter matures (2-3 years), the child's attention shifts from the oral to the anal zone. This change provides further outlets for libidinal gratification (anal erotism) and for the emerging aggressive drive (anal sadism). The musculature is the source of sadism and the anal mucous membrane is the source of the anal erotic drive.

The sadistic instinct, which contradictory aim is (1) to destroy the object but also, by mastering it, (2) to preserve it, coincides with activity, whereas the anal-erotic instinct is related to passivity.

The interaction between these two component instincts is the following: the bipolar aim of sadism corresponds to the bi-phasic functioning (expulsion/retention) of the anal sphincter and its control.
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: two feasts on February 02, 2012, 01:32:20 PM

Which posts, L Liberti, the ones commenting on the anal thing? These ones?

Quote
Quote
Quote

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.


So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal


Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!

For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.


Funny that you mention the "homo-economicus to homo-sexualis" thing, Here it is a post mentioning exactly such:

Quote
Quote


By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By arranging many such marriages for his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth. Thus society began to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was required. However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show, children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt successfully to life-long monogamy. Therefore, along with class stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. [...] As Reich puts it:


Quote
"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the transformation of the one organisation into the other. In view of the fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the male members of the higher ranking gens and families developed a keen interest in making the nuptial ties permanent. At this stage, in other words, only the man had an interest in marriage. In this way natural work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be easily dissolved at any time, was transformed into the permanent and monogamous marital relationship of patriarchy. The permanent monogamous marriage became the basic institution of patriarchal society -- which it still is today. To safeguard these marriages, however, it was necessary to impose greater and greater restrictions upon and to depreciate natural genital strivings." The suppression of natural sexuality involved in this transformation from matricentric to patriarchal society created various anti-social drives (sadism, destructive impulses, rape fantasies, etc.), which then also had to be suppressed through the imposition of a compulsive morality, which took the place the natural self-regulation that one finds in pre-patriarchal societies. In this way, sex began to be regarded as "dirty," "diabolical," "wicked," etc. -- which it had indeed become through the creation of secondary drives."
So basically sexual repression is effectuated for economic purposes?
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: two feasts on February 02, 2012, 01:41:16 PM
Another interesting psot by "notabiggie"

Quote
In this way, by damaging the individual's power to rebel and think for him/herself, the inhibition of childhood sexuality -- and indeed other forms of free, natural expression of bioenergy (e.g. shouting, crying, running, jumping, etc.) -- becomes the most important weapon in creating reactionary personalities. This is why every reactionary politician puts such an emphasis on "strengthening the family" and promoting "family values" (i.e. patriarchy, compulsive monogamy, premarital chastity, corporal punishment, etc.).

Since authoritarian society reproduces itself in the individual structures of the masses with the help of the authoritarian family, it follows that political reaction has to regard and defend the authoritarian family as THE basis of the "state, culture, and civilisation...." [It is] POLITICAL REACTION'S GERM CELL, the most important centre for the production of reactionary men and women. Originating and developing from definite social processes, it becomes the most essential institution for the preservation of the authoritarian system that shapes it. The family is the most essential institution for this purpose because children are most vulnerable to psychological maiming in their first few years, from the time of birth to about 6 yrs of age, during which time they are mostly in the charge of their parents. The schools and churches then continue the process of conditioning once the children are old enough to be away from their parents, but they are generally unsuccessful if the proper foundation has not been laid very early in life by the parents. Thus A.S. Neill observes that "the nursery training is very like the kennel training. The whipped child, like the whipped puppy, grows into an obedient, inferior adult. And as we train our dogs to suit our own purposes, so we train our children. In that kennel, the nursery, the human dogs must be clean; they must feed when we think it convenient for them to feed. I saw a 100,000 obedient, fawning dogs wag their tails in the Templehof, Berlin, when in 1935, the great trainer Hitler whistled his commands.

The family is also the main agency of repression during adolescence, when sexual energy reaches its peak. This is because the vast majority of parents provide no private space for adolescents to pursue undisturbed sexual relationships with their partners, but in fact actively discourage such behaviour, often (as in fundamentalist Christian families) demanding complete abstinence -- at the very time when abstinence is most impossible! Moreover, since teenagers are economically dependent on their parents under capitalism, with no societal provision of housing or dormitories allowing for sexual freedom, young people have no alternative but to submit to irrational parental demands for abstention from premarital sex. This in turn forces them to engage in furtive sex in the back-seats of cars or other out-of-the-way places where they cannot relax or obtain full sexual satisfaction. As Reich found, when sexuality is repressed and laden with anxiety, the result is always some degree of what he terms "orgastic impotence": the inability to fully surrender to the flow of energy discharged during orgasm. Hence there is an incomplete release of sexual tension, which results in a state of chronic bioenergetic stasis. Such a condition, Reich found, is the breeding ground for neuroses and reactionary attitudes. In this connection it is interesting to note that "primitive" societies, such as the Trobriand Islanders, prior to their developing patriarchal-authoritarian institutions, provided special community houses where teenagers could go with their partners to enjoy undisturbed sexual relationships -- and this with society's full approval. Such an institution would be taken for granted in an anarchist society, as it is implied by the concept of freedom.

Nationalistic feelings can also be traced to the authoritarian family. A child's attachment to its mother is, of course, natural and is the basis of all family ties. Subjectively, the emotional core of the concepts of homeland and nation are mother and family, since the mother is the homeland of the child, just as the family is the "nation in miniature." According to Reich, who carefully studied the mass appeal of Hitler's "National Socialism," nationalistic sentiments are a direct continuation of the family tie and are rooted in a FIXATED tie to the mother. As Reich points out, although infantile attachment to the mother is natural, FIXATED attachment is not, but is a social product. In puberty, the tie to the mother would make room for other attachments, i.e., natural sexual relations, IF the unnatural sexual restrictions imposed on adolescents did not cause it to be eternalised. It is in the form of this socially-conditioned externalisation that fixation on the mother becomes the basis of nationalist feelings in the adult; and it is only at this stage that it becomes a reactionary social force. Later writers who have followed Reich in analysing the process of creating reactionary character structures have broadened the scope of his analysis to include other important inhibitions, besides sexual ones, that are imposed on children and adolescents. Rianne Eisler, for example, in her book "Sacred Pleasure", stresses that it is not just a ***-negative attitude but a PLEASURE-negative attitude that creates the kinds of personalities in question. Denial of the value of pleasurable sensations permeates our unconscious, as reflected, for example, in the common idea that to enjoy the pleasures of the body is the "animalistic" (and hence "bad") side of human nature, as contrasted with the "higher" pleasures of the mind and "spirit." By such dualism, which denies a spiritual aspect to the body, people are made to feel guilty about enjoying any pleasurable sensations -- a conditioning that does, however, prepare them for lives based on the sacrifice of pleasure (or indeed, even of life itself) under capitalism and statism, with their requirements of mass submission to alienated labour, exploitation, military service to protect ruling-class interests, and so on. And at the same time, authoritarian ideology emphasises the value of suffering, as for example through the glorification of the tough, insensitive warrior hero, who suffers (and inflicts "necessary" suffering on others ) for the sake of some pitiless ideal.

Eisler also points out that there is "ample evidence that people who grow up in families where rigid hierarchies and painful punishments are the norm learn to suppress anger toward their parents. There is also ample evidence that this anger is then often deflected against traditionally disempowered groups (such as minorities, children, and women)" This repressed anger then becomes fertile ground for reactionary politicians, whose mass appeal usually rests in part on scapegoating minorities for society's problems. As the psychologist Else Frenkel-Brunswick documents in "The Authoritarian Personality", people who have been conditioned through childhood abuse to surrender their will to the requirements of feared authoritarian parents, also tend to be very susceptible as adults to surrender their will and minds to authoritarian leaders. "In other words, at the same time that they learn to deflect their repressed rage against those they perceive as weak, they also learn to submit to autocratic or 'strong-man' rule. Moreover, having been severely punished for any hint of rebellion (even 'talking back' about being treated unfairly), they gradually also learn to deny to themselves that there was anything wrong with what was done to them as children -- and to do it in turn to their own children"

These are just some of the mechanisms that perpetuate the status quo by creating the kinds of personalities who worship authority and fear freedom. Consequently, anarchists are generally opposed to traditional child-rearing practices, the patriarchal-authoritarian family (and its "values"), the suppression of adolescent sexuality, and the pleasure-denying, pain affirming attitudes taught by the Church and in most schools. In place of these, anarchists favour non-authoritarian, non-repressive child-rearing practices and educational methods whose purpose is to prevent, or at least minimise, the psychological crippling of individuals, allowing them instead to develop natural self regulation and self-motivated learning. This, we believe, is the only way to for people to grow up into happy, creative, and truly freedom-loving individuals who will provide the psychological ground where anarchist economic and political institutions can flourish.
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: beepster on February 04, 2012, 01:40:38 PM
Quote


By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By arranging many such marriages for his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth. Thus society began to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was required. [...]

Quote
"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the transformation of the one organisation into the other. In view of the fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the male members of the higher ranking gens and families developed a keen interest in making the nuptial ties permanent. At this stage, in other words, only the man had an interest in marriage. In this way natural work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be easily dissolved at any time, was transformed into the permanent and monogamous marital relationship of patriarchy. The permanent monogamous marriage became the basic institution of patriarchal society -- which it still is today. [...]

Wow - we had a good laugh at that "dowry" thing that's mentioned in here! LOL!
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: applewasp on February 05, 2012, 12:37:19 PM

Which posts, L Liberti, the ones commenting on the anal thing? These ones?

Quote
Quote
Quote

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.


So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal


Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!

For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.


Funny that you mention the "homo-economicus to homo-sexualis" thing, Here it is a post mentioning exactly such:

Quote

Quote

By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By arranging many such marriages for his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth. Thus society began to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was required. However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show, children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt successfully to life-long monogamy. Therefore, along with class stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. [...] As Reich puts it:


Quote
"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the transformation of the one organisation into the other. In view of the fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the male members of the higher ranking gens and families developed a keen interest in making the nuptial ties permanent. At this stage, in other words, only the man had an interest in marriage. In this way natural work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be easily dissolved at any time, was transformed into the permanent and monogamous marital relationship of patriarchy. The permanent monogamous marriage became the basic institution of patriarchal society -- which it still is today. To safeguard these marriages, however, it was necessary to impose greater and greater restrictions upon and to depreciate natural genital strivings." The suppression of natural sexuality involved in this transformation from matricentric to patriarchal society created various anti-social drives (sadism, destructive impulses, rape fantasies, etc.), which then also had to be suppressed through the imposition of a compulsive morality, which took the place the natural self-regulation that one finds in pre-patriarchal societies. In this way, sex began to be regarded as "dirty," "diabolical," "wicked," etc. -- which it had indeed become through the creation of secondary drives."


So basically sexual repression is effectuated for economic purposes?


No doubt about it, two feasts, sexual repression comes into play because of the economic factor.
Title: Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
Post by: Cloret on February 06, 2012, 03:39:16 PM

Which posts, L Liberti, the ones commenting on the anal thing? These ones?

Quote
Quote
Quote

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.


So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal


Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!

For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.



So basically sexual repression is effectuated for economic purposes?


No doubt about it, two feasts, sexual repression comes into play because of the economic factor.


Well, applewasp, what I have heard is this:

"Money is like a big giant d i c k. The fact that they'll give you some is only going to make you have more and more of it inside you."
Title: Re: The Joker
Post by: malachovsky on February 08, 2012, 04:14:29 PM

Remember, the goal is to question Binary Logic:

Derrida introduced, for instance, the SUPPLEMENT. The French word supplément means both addition and replacement. The supplement both extends and replaces -- as a dietary supplement both adds to the diet and becomes part of the diet. The supplement obeys a strange logic.

To be an addition means to be added to something already complete, like Son to the King.

... yet it cannot be complete if it needs an addition. The King is complete and has an addition; needing an addition, the King is not yet whole.

The supplement extends by replacing. The King's son has the same blood and is the King's extension. But the supplement opposes by replacing. The King's son will usurp the king, take his place.

The declaration, "The King is dead, long live the King!" must escape the grip of standard logic. It follows the logic of the supplement. The king must be the same but different: he is figured twice, as the father-king and the supplement-king.

Thoth opposed his father-king, but he opposed what he himself repeated. He opposed himself. Thoth, the demi-god, is undecidable. And so is Theuth, his Greek counterpart.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9302/spplyj5.jpg


Theuth is the father's other, the father, and himself. He cannot be assigned a fixed location in the play. Sly, slippery and masked, an intriguer and a card, he is neither king nor jack, but rather a sort of a joker, a floating signifier, a wild card, one who puts play into play. And this joker is the inventor of play, of games of draughts, dice, etc. Every act of his is marked by an unstable ambivalence. He is the god of calculation, arithmetic and rational science; and he also presides over the occult sciences, astrology and alchemy. He is the god of magic formulae, of secret accounts, of hidden texts. And so he is the god of medicine. The god of writing is the god of pharmakon... So can Theuth simply have meant writing as a "remedy"? Isn't the undecidable demi-god condemned to invent undecidables? Not just remedies, but pharmakons? Isn't Theuth's desire for writing a desire for orphanhood and patricidal subversion? Isn't this pharmakon a criminal thing, a poisoned gift?


Well, if the virus is neither living nor not-living, then it's puzzingly undecidable. As we'll see, undecidability is a threat to the traditional foundations of philosophy. Undecidables are threatening. They poison the comforting sense that we inhabit a world governed by decidable categories. Binary opposotions classify and organize the objects, events and relations of the world. They make decision possible. And they govern thinking in everyday life, as well as philosophy, theory and the sciences. Undecidables disrupt this oppositional logic. They slip across both sides of an opposition but don't properly fit either. They are more than the opposition can allow. And because of that, they question the very principle of "opposition."


Truth-be-told, this seems kinda odd to me, but I felt it relates (to the above posts) - reason why I am adding it


Although the word-chain pharmakeia-pharmakon-pharmakeus appears several times in Plato's texts, he never uses a closely related term, pharmakos, which means 'scapegoat'. According to Derrida, that it is not used by Plato does not indicate that the word is necessarily absent, or rather, it is always-already present as a 'trace'.

In ancient Athens, the ritual of the pharmakos was used to expel and shut out the evil (out of the body and out of the city). To achieve this, the Athenians maintained several outcasts at public expense. In the event of any calamity, they sacrificed one or more than one outcast as a purification and a remedy. The pharmakos, the 'scapegoat', the 'outsider' was led to the outside of the city walls and killed in order to purify the city's interior. The evil that had infected the city from 'outside' is removed and returned to the 'outside', forever. But, ironically, the representative of the outside (the pharmakos) was nonetheless kept at the very heart of the inside, the city, and that too in public expense. In order to be led out of the city, the scapegoat must have already been within the city. The ceremony of the pharmakos is played out on the boundary line between the 'inside' and the 'outside', which it has as its function ceaselessly to trace and retrace. Similarly, the pharmakos stands on the thin red line between sacred and cursed, ... beneficial insofar as he cures - and for that, venerated and cared for - harmful insofar as he incarnates the powers of evil - and for that, feared and treated with caution. He is the healer who cures, and he is the criminal who is the incarnation of the powers of evil. The pharmakos is like a medicine, pharmakon, in case of a specific disease, but, like most medicines, he is, simultaneously, a poison, evil all the same. Pharmakos, Pharmakon: they escape both the sides by at once being and not being on a side. Both words carry within themselves more than one meaning, that is, conflicting meanings.

Pharmakos does not only mean scapegoat. It is a synonym for pharmakeus, a word often repeated by Plato, meaning 'wizard', 'magician', even 'poisoner'. In Plato's dialogues, Socrates is often depicted and termed as a pharmakeus. Socrates is considered as one who knows how to perform magic with words, and notably, not with written letters. His words act as a pharmakon (as a remedy, or allegedly as a poison as far as the Athenian authority were concerned) and change, cure the soul of the listener). In Phaedrus, he fiercely objects to the evil effects of writing, which, obviously, is what makes Derrida so interested in this book. Socrates compares writing to a pharmakon, a drug, a poison: writing repeats without knowing, creates abominable simulacra. Here Socrates deliberately overlooks the other meaning of the word: the cure. Socrates suggests a different pharmakon, a medicine: dialectics, the philosophical form of dialogue. This, he claims, can lead us to the truth of the eidos, that which is identical to itself, always the same as itself, invariable. Here Socrates again overlooks the 'other' reading of the word 'pharmakon': the poison. He acts as a magician (pharmakos) - Socrates himself speaks about a supernatural voice that talks through him - and his most famous medicine (pharmakon) is speech, dialectics and dialogue leading to ultimate knowledge and truth.

But, ironically, Socrates also becomes Athens's most famous 'other' pharmakos, the scapegoat. He becomes a stranger, even an enemy who poisons the republic and its citizens. He is an abominable 'other'; not the absolute other, the barbarian, but the other (the outside) who is very near, like those outcasts, who is always-already on the inside. He is at once the 'cure' and the 'poison', and just like him, the Athenians chose to forget one of those meanings according to the need. And, at the end, Plato put Socrates in what he considered to be the vilest of all poisons: in writing, that survives to this day. Phaedrus and Socrates both stand as a metonym [very significantly meaning "beyond names"] for the whole contest between speech and letters, for the central (if such an inappropriate word can be excused) theme of the Derridian project. The interplay between the words pharmakon-pharmakos-pharmakeus is another example of Derridian 'Trace'.
Title: Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
Post by: Saction8 on February 13, 2012, 02:45:41 PM
I find some very funny posts on this board - here it is another one from "know" - I am posting it here as that thread has been suspended (well, you can guess as to why :) - talks about DNA * & ^ % and the like - I mean, what the @ # ! * DNA has to do with law?! 

Quote
Your mentioning of the binary notion and DNA reminded me of a very interesting discovery I read about some time ago:

Calculating that 0 + 0 = 0, 1 + 0 = 1, and 0 + 1 = 1 is normally no big deal. When the calculations are done in the lab using DNA molecules, however, these elementary manipulations look considerably more interesting. Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City reported some years back that they have developed an algorithm that permits the use of single-stranded DNA reactions to add binary numbers. More impressively, they had the experimental evidence to back their scheme. Since 1994, when computer scientist Leonard M. Adleman of the University of Southern California first demonstrated the feasibility of a molecular approach to solving mathematical problems, researchers focused on finding ways to link mathematics and biochemistry to perform different kinds of computations. Their long-term hope is that DNA-based computers will eventually prove superior in speed, memory capacity, and energy efficiency over electronic computers for solving certain kinds of problems. Most research efforts have tried to take advantage of the enormous number of DNA molecules that can be packed into a small volume. Adleman, for example, solved a combinatorial problem by generating all the possible combinations as different strands of DNA, then searching for, isolating, and identifying the one strand representing the correct solution.

In contrast, Mount Sinai's Frank Guarnieri and Carter Bancroft have concentrated on developing a DNA-based addition algorithm, which demands only that the correct output be produced in response to specific inputs. Consequently, the addition operation requires a quite different model for the use of DNA in computing than that used previously for search procedures. A single strand of DNA consists of a chain of simpler molecules called bases, which protrude from a sugar-phosphate backbone. The four varieties of bases are known as adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). Any strand of DNA will adhere tightly to its complementary strand, in which T substitutes for A, G for C, and vice versa. For example, a single-stranded DNA segment consisting of the base sequence TAGCC will stick to a section of another strand made up of the complementary sequence ATCGG. The links between pairs of bases are responsible for binding together two strands to form the characteristic double helix of a DNA molecule.

The researchers first assigned 3-base units to letters of the alphabet, numerals, and punctuation marks.

(http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/6082/untitless1.jpg)

Adding binary numbers, represented as strings of 1s and 0s, requires keeping track of the position of each digit and of any "carries" that come up when 1 is added to 1 to give the result 10. For example, adding 11 to 01 means starting with the digits farthest to the right of each number: 1 + 1 = 10, so 0 goes in the first place from the right, and 1 is carried over to the next column. When the carried digit is added to the two digits in the second position from the right (1 + 1 + 0), the result is 10, with 0 in the second position from the right and 1 in the third position to give the final answer 100.

  1 1
+ 0 1
-------
1 0 0

Converting this procedure into manipulations of DNA molecules demands the use of DNA sequences that not only represent strings of 0s and 1s but also allow for carries and the extension of DNA strands to represent the answers. In their DNA addition algorithm, Guarnieri and Bancroft use special sequences that encode the number in a given position (0 or 1) and its position from the right. For example, the first digit in the first position is given by two DNA strands, each consisting of a short sequence representing a "position transfer operator" (which carries information to the adjacent position), a short sequence representing the value of the digit (0 or 1), and a short sequence representing a "position operator." In their Science paper, Guarnieri, Bancroft, and Makiko Fliss supply DNA representations of all possible two-digit binary integers (00, 01, 10, 11), which can then be added in pairs. Adding such a pair involves four steps, in which the appropriate complementary sequences link up and strands are successively extended to make new, longer strands, finally yielding the correct output.

The researchers term this set of steps a horizontal chain reaction. Input DNA sequences serve as successive templates for constructing an extended result strand. Like a tape recording, the final strand encodes the outcomes of successive operations, yielding the digits of the answer in the correct order. The growing strand is also an active participant in the addition algorithm because the output strand for each operation (reaction) serves as the operator (primer) for the succeeding operation. Thus, the resulting DNA strand serves both as an operator that transfers information during the addition algorithm and as a tape that records the outcome of the algorithm. What they've done with the horizontal chain reaction is to start getting DNA molecules to communicate with each other. To test their algorithm in the lab, the team combined in a test tube the DNA strands representing the two numbers to be added, along with the chemicals needed for the strand extension reactions. In this way, they successfully determined the sums 0 + 0, 0 + 1, 1 + 0, and 1 + 1 in the form of DNA strands of the appropriate molecular size. The necessary biochemical procedures took about 1 or 2 days of lab work for each calculation.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3004490.msg3068986#msg3068986