Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

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.

Messages - mac n cheese

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
A lawyer should not want people to call them "doctor" because people will think they have lots of money which is misleading for most lawyers. People may also expect us to be extraordinarly smart which is not the case. I think its legal for anyone to call themself "doctor". Its only when you cut someone open or prescribe meds which triggers illegality. For example, take "Dr. DRE", he got away with it for years but didn't face legal problems because he doesn't prescribe meds - Neither did Dr. Suess

2
Meta Discussion / Re: Please Close My Account
« on: July 01, 2010, 06:00:53 AM »
The hell you reading it for then? I also practiced on my LSAT test and officially can say, it is a simple test. After practicing and perfecting my skills I have consecutively scored above a 174, which is damn near perfect. This test will be a breeze for me.

I keep posting until its closed. Those who "pry" may have been here longer, but does it look like I care? Just because your post count yells "loser" does not mean you are someone who outranks me on any scale aside from being a loser.

"The hell you reading it for then?"  "damn near perfect". This is too funny!!

3
Personal Statement / Re: Diversity Statement
« on: July 01, 2010, 05:14:11 AM »
Diversity statements are more based on race, sexual orientation, etc.

I disagree. If he's disabled as a result of his traumatic brain injury, then it would warrant a diversity statement.

4
Its good! I enjoyed reading it. If it were my work, I'd re-write the opening paragraph so that it has a sense of direction. Plus, it has way too many commas.  I'd also scratch the first sentence in the closing paragraph. Other than that, its cool.

Best Wishes

5
General Board / Re: Interesting
« on: June 30, 2010, 04:05:43 PM »
There are more stories out there like this one. I read somewhere that traumatic events often guide career decisions. Its like an orphan wanting to be a social worker, or a kid that grows up with a sick parent wanting to be a doctor. Its no suprise that this guy wanted to be a lawyer. I think its cool. He certainly won't be uncomfrotable around his clients which is a good thing!

6
General Board / Re: Part Time Law
« on: June 30, 2010, 03:38:56 PM »
If you want to hang a shingle and do wills and divorces, part-time is fine.  If you want to clerk for Scalia or make the big law monies, don't do part-time.  Put these two extremes on a sliding scale and see where you land.


Enrolling in full time program does not increase your chances of earning "big law monies" or your ability to land a prestigious clerkship. It basically just lets you finish earlier. There may be some "extra curricular" activies (for lack of a better term) that you may miss out on but nothing more than that.

7
You are taking a risk in turning this in. It feels poetic and reads like a romance novel. The admission committe will either fall in love with you or have a great laugh amongst each other. In either case, it was very interesting to read!!

Best Wishes,

MaCNCheese

8
General Board / Re: Part Time Law
« on: June 29, 2010, 04:39:12 PM »
I am preparing for LSAT. I am also considering PT Law schools. I am currently working as a Project Engineer. It is hard for me to quit my job and go to school full time. I am having a hard time evaluating the advantages of going to Law school PT. Although, I have earned a Masters Degree going to School PT, it was till a nightmare.

I have a 3.83 GPA and 165+ LSAT (prep tests), should I quit my job and try for top-tier law schools full-time or keep my job - study PT at a low rank school?

Seeing as though you've had experience with working and going to school part-time, you would have an idea as to whether or not you should quit your job. I will say that if you found it difficult to balance a master's degree program with a full time job, you will certainly find it difficult to balance a law program with a full time job. Not to discourage you because there are many people that have successfully managed. I would suggest that you take the LSAT and get an official score before you start to make plans. You may also find it helpful to talk to some part-time students at schools in your range. There are some benefits of being full time day as opposed to evening and you would obviously have to weigh the pros and cons. Going full time will enable you to finish sooner. There are also some clinics that you may not have access to if you go part-time evening. So basically, it will depend on your needs. Good Luck!!

9
Haynes,
So, i ask you "what did you expect from a marriage?" and you respond by saying, "I didn't have any clear expectations". Come on........

10
Your right I DON'T understand the issue.  As I said "I don't really see your point".

In your initial statement you claimed that any given woman would be upset to be married without a ring at a court house and that to a male, having your wife take your name is the symbolic equivalent of a fancy wedding for a woman.  This sort of statement really does nothing to support the idea that it is either right or wrong for a man to expect his wife to change her name.  All you are saying is that "things like changing names and fancy ceremonies ARE important to people". 

You are counting on the fact that all women want diamonds and fancy weddings to prove your point. 

You final statement about how if "hypothetically" I did want a diamond, in principle, my husband should give it to me because in healthy relationships couples care about how their loved one feels.  This misses the issue entirely because the issue is how do we deal with a situation where two people who are about to get married get into a dispute where one wants one thing and the other wants the opposite.  The principle that "you should give your fiance what they want" simply cannot be applied if both people want opposite things.  The question becomes which person will give way.  Why ought the woman give way in this instance?  Why do you assume that the woman cares less about keeping her maiden name than the man cares about the woman taking his name?   

Um..I don't really see your point.  Tons of people get married and not everyone has rings or ceremonies.  Take me for example, I kept my maiden name when I was married but I also never got a diamond engagement ring and I did not have a wedding with a fancy dress and a string quartet.

 The ceremony of marriage doesn't interest me particularly.  I understand that some women are into those things but there are women out there who would trade the traditional trappings of marriage just to keep their maiden name.  Plus I don't really see your point because "traditionally" the brides family is supposed to pay for the wedding, all the man has to pay for is the engagement ring and engagement rings can be cheap or super expensive depending on HIS taste.  So the bride loses her name and puts her family in debt to pay for the wedding and you are talking about symbolism and unity.  It seems to me that "traditionally" men are the greater beneficiaries of marriage so stop complaining about what men have to sacrifice for marriage and respect women enough to see that we are not just silly romantic fools but rational creatures capable of sound financial and emotional judgement.   
That would hurt! The way I see it, there is not an objective correlation between happiness within a marriage and spouse name change. However, the name change symbolizes unity and togetherness which is obviously an issue in the event it doesn't happen. Just to illustrate my point - how would you feel if he expected you to marry him, but didn't give you a ring or a nice wedding ceremony? What if he wanted to skip the ring altogether? What if his idea of a nice wedding was to take you in his car down to the court building and marry you, then afterwards, take you to an all you can eat buffet then drop you off at home before going to work? You'd probably feel like crap because of what those things actually sybolize. On a broader scale, people rarely admit the importance of appearance and how things look to friends, family, and colleagues.
I'd probably react by explaining how important the name thing is. If I had to beg, I wouldn't want to move forward because begging is not cool. If I had to beg about this, then there is no telling what else i'd have to beg for. Just my thoughts. Be good

MaCNCheese

You don't see the real issue here. You'd only understand my point if you could somehow understand that somethings are important to a potential spouse and when these things are disregarded by the fiance, it hurts. So, hypothetically speaking, what if a diamond ring and a fancy dress with a quartet string was important to YOU? If you didn't get those things, you'd be disappointed and therefore hurt. Furthermore, it's irrelevant to mention whether or not the groom or the bride is financially responsible for the wedding. (doesn't really matter who pays the bill) If the bride expects it and doesn't get it, she will be a bridezilla! Period.More importantly in this issue, is its IMORTANCE to either person. Obviously, if two people could care less about the jewelry, then it is not an issue - but thats not what we are talking about. Were talking about a situation in which one person values something and deems it important for the relationship, but the other does not.

MaCNCheese

You've said: "You are counting on the fact that all women want diamonds and fancy weddings to prove your point." 

My response: This is inaccurate. I merely used the example as a hypo to prove the point that when expectations are not met, it hurts. (admittedly, i've assumed that THIS hypo would be a good illustration because in my neighborhood, most girls like diamonds and weddings. Go figure!

You also state: "It seems to me that "traditionally" men are the greater beneficiaries of marriage so stop complaining about what men have to sacrifice for marriage and respect women enough to see that we are not just silly romantic fools but rational creatures capable of sound financial and emotional judgement".   

My response: Who said this? I never complained about what men have to sacrifice and never implied that women are silly romantic fools that are incapable of sound financial and emotional judgment. This statement in itself is quite emotional.....

You say: The principle that "you should give your fiance what they want" simply cannot be applied if both people want opposite things.  The question becomes which person will give way.  Why ought the woman give way in this instance?  Why do you assume that the woman cares less about keeping her maiden name than the man cares about the woman taking his name?   

My response: good point. In all honesty, no matter who gives way, someone will not get what they expect.

I can't let you off the hook that easy so I have a few questions. You mentioned that you did not get a ring and did not have a ceremeony, obviously, because you did not expect these things. Was there anything that you expected from the marriage? If so, what were the things that you expected?



Pages: [1] 2 3 4