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 - notfamous
« on: March 30, 2006, 09:45:16 AM »
I find it somewhat interesting that no one has mentioned the reason that a lot of people in the government only work 40 hours. It's because they are only allowed to work 40 hours. A very large portion of the federal government in unionized. Under the union rules many government employees (those on the GS scale) are actually hourly employees and are entitled to overtime pay (although it is generally given as comp time/credit hours/etc) if they work more than 40 hours a week. Depending on the particular office/supervisor it may or may not be possible to get approved to work more than 40 hours.
Now, I'm not saying that if you really want to move up in the government you only have to work 40 hours a week. I work between 50-60 hours a week- more when I have lots of travel. And I don't request comp time or credit hours for most of that because I personally feel that it's stupid to think that my job would only take 40 hours a week. However, I am pretty sure that I'm also in violation of the union rules. If I wanted to put my foot down and only work 40 hours a week, there's not much that anyone could do. You would not imagine how hard it is to fire a civil servant and you certainly couldn't do it if the only problem was that they refused to violate the union rules of only working 40 hours.
For what it's worth I've been in the government for almost 5 years. I came in as a Presidential Management Fellow (GS-9). I'm now a GS-14.
« on: March 29, 2006, 02:58:34 PM »
Mine had four categories-
Subsidized Stafford Loan
Unsidized Stafford Loan
Private Loan- Need Based
Private Loan- Non-need Based
I can't figure out what the difference is between the need-based and non-need based private loans. I thought that all private loans were there same. Are there special "need-based" private loans with lower rates or something?
The non-need-based private loan amount was exactly the same as my "expected family contribution," and the need-based amount was just the difference between the other loans and the estimated budget, so the reasoning behind the amounts made some sense. I just don't understand the two categories of private loans. I wasn't planning on taking out any of the private loans, but if there's some extra-low rate for the "need based" ones I might consider it.
Mostly I was just happy to qualify for the subsidized stafford loan. I didn't think I'd be eligible due to my crazy high expected contribution of over $33,000.
« on: February 17, 2006, 06:15:34 PM »
I just got this as well. I tried to call the number listed in the email but it went straight to voicemail and I wasn't brave enough to leave a message. I would be totally mortified to get a call back from someone telling me that I'm just not good enough for their school. I can handle rejection much better in writing.
« on: February 03, 2006, 01:53:05 PM »
Yes. I agree with all of this. Especially #3. That one is really important and something that people sometimes forget. Plus, not only will you get help figuring out where to go to school, you'll also be able to make connections for later on down the road.
« on: February 03, 2006, 09:16:36 AM »
Yes, it does.
« on: February 03, 2006, 09:10:28 AM »
I'd rather not say which health law scholars because I don't know that they'd really want me discussing their opinions on this subject. However, I will paraphrase this one piece of advise that really sums it all up- "My general advice about "special programs" at law schools is to ignore them and chose the best law school."
I also looked back through my info and realized something important- I'm pretty sure that USNWR only ranks schools with specific programs in health law in the health law rankings. So, regardless of the quality of the health law courses offered at a particular school, if they don't specifically recognize some sort of health law program, they won't be ranked.
As far as where to go if you want to teach- of course you should go to a school that is known for producing law professors. But, once you graduate you won't immediately (if ever) get a faculty position at HYS, etc. That's where the other schools come in. There are a lot more health law researchers/faculty out there than there are faculty positions for health law at the top schools- as you have probably noted when looking at the health law-specific course offering at most law schools.
« on: February 03, 2006, 08:34:17 AM »
Bear Girl and Lily,
I think that you are both right. The health law ranking are generally considered by health law scholars to be pretty accurate- I've never heard anyone say that they were ranking med mal programs. However, they are not ranking the quality of the school for training students to go into that field as practicing lawyers. They are ranking the quality of the faculty in health law. Because so few law schools have health law concentrations/foci/etc most law schools don't have a whole lot of faculty who specialize in health law. The schools ranked for health law do put a lot of money into supporting faculty research in that area. However, given that the JD curriculum is supposed to be more general in nature, the fact that a school has good research faculty in a particular area isn't necessarily the best place to get that more general training.
If you want a law school faculty position in health law, the rankings are helpful. If you are trying to decide where to get your law degree, they are not especially useful.
On a side note, many of the schools that do have strong health law programs are very concerned by the opening of the new health law center at Harvard. As Bear Girl pointed out, many of the schools with good health law programs really do use it as their "bread and butter." It is what distinguishes them from other schools of similar overall quality. There is now a fear that "bigger name" schools are going to follow Harvard's lead in recognizing the growing importance of health law and start syphoning off their faculty.
« on: February 03, 2006, 08:14:23 AM »
I also got the "reserve" letter with the June review yesterday. However, upon reading the letter I became even less interested in attending Columbia (I'm really not an NYC sort of person, but I applied because I have a ton of friends who live there). Did anyone else feel as if the letter was written in about 1950? Is there any other reason why it would contain the sentance, "Competition for admission has never been more keen." Keen?
Also, the letter explaining the "reserve" list was apparently written only for those applicants still in school. Literally ever single one of the example items that they indicate will be paid "particular attention" in the later review are only applicable to people still in school- "final term grades, thesis evaluations, election to Phi Beta Kappa, departmental honors, or other awards bestowed upon graduation for scholarship, leadership or service." Couldn't they have included at least some nod to the fact that it is possible for people out in the working world to receive additional honors/awards/promotions between the time of application and June? It mostly just made me feel as if they didn't even read my application- although I know it's just a form letter.
« on: January 28, 2006, 10:03:40 PM »
I really would be interested to hear if anyone else has ever heard from Yale folks who didn't like it. For the two friends of my friend who already graduated, I gather that they just didn't like the other students much. I don't think that either of them had many friends (other than each other) in the law school. They had a bunch outside of it, though. For the ones who are current students, I don't really know much other than they just aren't happy.
It just seems so odd to me that I appear to be the only person who has only ever heard bad things about Yale (the enviornment, not the quality of the education or its reputation). I'm not ruling out the possiblity that I'm just an anomily.
« on: January 28, 2006, 09:47:52 PM »
All years. Two of the people in question have graduated. One last year and one the year before (I think). The ones who are currently there are most likely all 1Ls, but there may be some 2Ls as well.