This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - Mina
« on: November 07, 2008, 08:45:04 PM »
I had this great idea that I was not gonna brief any cases, & do minimal amount of work (e.g. read/skim), try to network, and get this: Have a life (two days off every week, you know basic human rights)
Now, I took serious notes.
I'm outlining, and its heaps of work.
It appears impossible to catch-up as I'm outlinining.
Anyone else ever do this and end-up Ok?
Is it ok to rely on my class notes alone, w/out hornbooks or my textbook?
p.s. at least I am very motivated, as there is much work to do, and little time to do it.
« on: October 04, 2008, 10:53:28 PM »
I go to a mid T2 (top 70) and I ranked in the top 1/3, screwed up all OCI's, got inexplicably fired from one summer job, and the other job was so crappy that half way through I just stopped doing the work (but it was on the 68th floor of the empire state building, and the firm boss liked me).
I also quit legal aid after a day.
Anyway, I heard the networking advice and it seems a bit late for it.
Also, I have been screwing around for the last half of this semester,and its looking pretty bad.
I could start my own office
I have No debt as my parents are kinda rich, plus I have good family connects.
I'm quick witted, and really smart when I apply myself, but I am so lazy and addicted to pleasure
Now, what should I do next summer?
I am torn between
A) working for the gov't which I hate,
B) I can't work for Big Law as I am not qualified,
C) Do nothing and try to get laid
D) quit law school and find another profession, or retake the LSAT
E) Try to find a job
F) Network my ass off this coming 2L summer
E) YOUR ADVICE
Much Thanks to the lovely people of this board.
p.s. I love money but I love life way more.
« on: July 14, 2008, 10:15:25 PM »
hey you guys are realy awesome, just to let you know I love everyone here (yes even the nimwits and playa haters)
I have a qestion disguised as two.
Would it be better to focus on one area of law for my 2L year (e.g. crim law) or suck it all it in from many topics such as intellectual property, business organization, internet law, and so on?
« on: July 11, 2008, 03:05:25 PM »
Hi, I want to be a criminal defense attorney, and I have questions.
Q. I'm registered for 17 cedits, should I NOT do this?
Q. I am registered for a 2 credit LLC class, and have not taken corporations, should I NOT do this?
Thats all, all the best. -MG
« on: June 30, 2008, 08:46:54 PM »
i want to be a white collar ciminal defense attorney, everything else sickens me to my stomach.
I am enrolled in Federal Income tax class and business litigationa & crimes,
will take this class help me bcome a better criminal attorney?
« on: March 29, 2008, 10:52:16 PM »
I'm @ BLS, Q.1: is it nearly impossible for me to work in BIg law?, q.2: if not, will I be worked like a filthy animal (e.g. 70-80 hr weeks)? , q.3: what kind of law is practiced in these firms, will crim. law suffice, or must be corporate in nature? Thx.
« on: March 15, 2008, 08:47:53 PM »
should I ask my professor for one now, or should I wait until I get my spring semster grades?
I just don't feel like asking any of them now, it might divert my focus and create stigma that is unnecessary.
« on: February 24, 2008, 10:29:42 PM »
I'm in BLS, i was part-time, after ten credits, I have a 3.45 GPA (maybe more, since I have a 3.5 in 6 credits, but a 3.35 in 4), This year I'm takin 16 credits, and plan on taking another 4 (torts) this summer; the summer course ends July the 10th (final exam). My questions are as follows:
(1) Am I barred from applying to skewls (t14) that req. a 28 credit minimum?
(2) practically speaking, do I just need all A's to transfer to a T14 this year?
(3) Can I figure out my rank as of now? (how do I factor it, where do i find out?)
(4) When should I send my applications to the schools? Is it a piecemeal deal, i.e. send out App. mail grade, mail letter, etc.
(5) Uhm, how do I go about asking for a letter of recommendation? (I have a bunch of professor's that really like me, or so I believe or think, since I particpate with analytic precision, should I be like hey write me a LOR?) Do I just ask for it? or must it be clandestine like LSDAS.
(6) My Undergrand GPA is rather putrid as with my Lsat, 3.4 // 161 (3.89 in my major, and I took a few grad. courses as well); how much of a factor is this?
(7) I'm also african-american; but in a more fluid meaning of the word (i.e. I'm from Egypt Africa's bread-basket) Should I check off that box?
How does one write a personal statement that is not transparent or prima facie fictitious?
An avid thank you for all responses--if any.
An apology to all derailed readers--if any.
I'm firm believe in Einstein's motto: "First, change the way you look at things--then watch'em change..."
« on: January 16, 2008, 12:02:19 AM »
I've reasoned that the socratic method, when concentrated, is purposely used by a professor to mislead his or her students.
Here is my logic:
(1) A socratic question neither declares nor clearly reveals.
(2) There are myriad of "correct" answers to the question--which can be either true or false (i.e. factual or absurdly detached from reality--e.g. hypoz).
[assumption #1: the question is never concerned with what the answer is, but that there is an answer]
(3) any answer will be used agst the student, i.e. verbal judo, via ad absurdum to cause an internal contradiction in logic. (Socrates himself did this, see Euthyphyro)
(4) Any question stopping or perfect answer, will cause a subject change, or over-abstraction leading to unrealistic or counter-intuitive results. [verbal-judo 2]
(5) It is impossible to test Law Students on final eam via Socratic dialogue.
[assumption # 2 is that arguing in lawyerly fashion, that is via dialectic, is not socratic but simply analyzing meritable counter-objections based on the course's law]
Therefore, Socratic reasoning confuses students by starting with a question that will knowingly lead to an error, & then replacing that error with another (i.e. another question.)
[ assumption # 3: a question that has no perfect answer, or cannot have one, will always have an erroneous answer regardless]
[assumption # 4: using a method that will confuse students on purpose is professor mischief]
My theory: professor's are there to help, law is a confusing matter as is, they should present diagrams, give us the context of the case, & suggest prominent theories or how a modern day lawyer/judge would think about this. further, they should be preparing us for the final exam, instead of getting us to try & learn specifics of every case--to withstand socratic torture--they should be providing us with clarity on the big picture, not detail-focused confusion or Socratic rubbish to fill their own egos, or make them appear smarter or the subject matter more complex than is or will become.
"The oracle of Delphi neither feels nor reveals, but gives a sign" --Heraclitus.
One may be tempted to equate "Socratic" professors with the ancient Oracle, all they're missing is a high-chair & sacrifice--they already have the prestige.
open to critiques/concurrences--M.
« on: January 15, 2008, 11:27:33 AM »
Contracts (K) is driving me crazy, there are way too many things to consider at any given moment/point, & the prof. refuses to teach us any theory--he presented 7, each with two-three paradoxes. I have a hornbook, its not really helpful but gives decent history of assumpsit & other analytically useless nonsense. How does one begin to think or understand analysis of K law?