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 - suchgreatheights
« on: December 19, 2008, 11:59:42 PM »
I go to a good school where in a past property exam a professor gave *4* D's. So i definitely tihnk its possible...
but do you really think you'll be *less* employable with f's on your transcript then without a law degree?
Probably not...especially if they're all the same term and you can give a good sympathetic explanation.
« on: December 19, 2008, 05:25:59 PM »
In general, institutions accept applicants when applicants give them what they want.
Prestige determining law school rankings , not insignificant part, by the LSAT scores of their incoming class; its possible to get into a good law school just by scoring high enough on the LSAT because it gives them one of the things they want.
Law firms on the other hand, don't publish LSAT statistics; they do however publish information about where their associates went to law school and that can be part of their strategy in attracting clients; its part of their professional image like wearing conservative suits. Adding another Harvard or Yale graduate to their list of associates is therefore often defacto enough to get in since it fulfills one of the things they want from associates.
A huge part of the appeal of a high LSAT to law schools does not exist with law firms: it doesn't give them anything.
Similarly a perfect GRE will not get you into a good grad school: its not what they're looking for.
« on: June 30, 2008, 11:25:45 PM »
But, DontQuestionMe, you seem to be ignoring the indisputable FACT that Budlaw MUST be right because he punctuates his posts with ALLCAPS whereas you, at least initially, managed to respond more calmly
« on: June 30, 2008, 01:45:19 AM »
God I can't imagine what a joke an outpatient program for a drug that causes no chemical dependence or withdraw syndromes, for a 'patient' who isn't even actively using it let alone dependent on it or detoxing from it, would be.
Like, lol, what kind of a drug addict (or for that matter alcoholic) *forgets* that the substance of their choice is in their vehical.
« on: June 29, 2008, 06:59:49 PM »
If it makes you feel any better, consider that most of the addcoms have probably broken marijuana and alcohol laws when they were younger (if they're not still doing it, as many professional people do) they just didn't get caught. Its not like theft or assault or heroin trafficing or any sort of crime that anyone but a conservative takes very seriously and most admissions people are not conservatives.
You need to do some community work. Maybe tell kids about the dangers of drug use.
There aren't any substantial dangers from pot use...
...except getting arrested for engaging in a totally victimless activity...
How did you (the OP) manage to do that anyways?
I'm being perfectly serious here. This is much more different than if you would have had these charges at 16. I recommend calling the State Board of Bar examiners in the jurisdiction in which you want to ultimately practice and see what they think off the top of their head.
Oh come on, using marijuana more than three years before JD graduation wont disqualify someone from working in the FBI
let alone a state bar.
« on: April 18, 2008, 12:57:03 AM »
I think the idea that gender equality means simply making roles gender neutral and acceptable for either men or women is a rather unrealistic approach.
The phenomenon of housewives exists because generation after generation of culture and tradition glorifying motherhood and 'homemaking' as an ideal, or at least acceptable, "occupation" for women, has institutionalized itself, with housewife mothers and breadwinner fathers showing their daughters that its an easy or even optimal way to get through life, and that their sons can expect it. This arraignment originated from when women didn't have most civil rights and couldn't be professionally employed, and reproduction was harder to control.
It serves some real material interests in the same way that having paid domestic servants does: it makes some people's lives (namely their husbands and children's) very comfortable...there is therefore an incentive for a lot of people to reproduce the institution over generations. This leads to playing it up as a fulfilling lifestyle (i.e. "being a mother is the most important job in the world") in order to encourage women to be housewives, and those who are already housewives have an incentive to play it up as fulfilling and enjoyable as well because everyone tends to feel like they need to be able to rationalize and justify their choices (especially when its too late to back out).
So while the material conditions that allowed the patriarchal family to develop originally(legal gender inequality and poor birth control options) no longer exist, there remains an incentive to perpetuate it.
Because there is no historical, multi-generational social basis for 'househusbands' there is no culturally influential ideology to perpetuate them. Housewives as a lifestyle have the evangelicals, the catholics, the mormons, and generations of parents saying that its at worst acceptable and in some instance expected.
Some guys might think they'd *like* to be a househusband...in theory...because they've drunk the koolaid over it the same way housewives have...but without the supporting culture constantly reinforcing and encouraging that lifestyle choice (no one says 'raising children is the most important thing a man can do') it probably wouldn't be so nice...
Similarly, some women who want to be able to devote themselves to real lives out of the home might think that if they want kids they need someone to give them constant attention and a househusband is somehow making a meaningful contribution...but really overestimating the amount of effort and attention that needs to be devoted to children (as if spending x amount of time with them is a moral necessity) is part of the ideology that justifies the gendered division of labour by creating an imagined necessity for housewives. Its probably healthier for kids to interact more with people their own age, depend less on a single parent exclusively, and have more social independence and autonomy anyways; just because parents seem to think that micromanaging them is important doesn't mean it is.
So in conclusion to this rant, I can't imagine wanting a househusband or thinking its acceptable; who wants to be married to a loser who stays home all the time and doesn't have a real life apart from his family? The women's lib movement ensured that women would have a way out of such an insular, dependent position, why would anyone want to similarly degrade men?
« on: March 03, 2008, 12:19:50 AM »
Honestly, mostly because i like being a student and want three more years (lame I know), and i don't think i'm ready for a real job lol.
Also because it seems much easier to get a job with a JD then a PhD (which would be my other option given my desire to stretch out my education, not that its easy to get a job as a lawyer but its way way easier than as an academic).
« on: February 25, 2008, 01:54:47 AM »
I don't think theft is meaningful as such if it doesn't entail denying someone use of something tangible: downloading music isn't stealing music its just copying it.
In this sense it is in no way analogous to stealing a CD from a record store no matter how much the greedy record industry wants to make people think it is.
I also think that the argument that if you download music without paying for it there wont be a motivation to produce it is rather ridiculous; people would still produce music for the fame and substantial money from other sources even if their profits from record sales were halved; there are other sources of money like live performances. If the production of any music suffered it would only be the company-created made to sell boy-band type music; people who produce music as an artistic expression would still do so just like artists in less lucrative fields do.
« on: February 25, 2008, 01:46:50 AM »
i think the sex would be incredible if i had a SO who is far right.
I suspect far rightists are sadists
« on: February 25, 2008, 01:36:06 AM »
Thanks for the responses everyone, especially for theDecider's list, Dupont Circle sounds pretty good i hope i can get a flat there if I end up in DC. Does anyone have a sense of how long it would take to get from Dupont Circle to GULC?
I went to McFadden's website it looks horrible so I hope you're being sarcastic though.
once the semester really gets going you won't have enough time to get bored with it.
i tend to slack off though.
The metro will get you most places, but watch out, cause it closes at midnight on weekdays, and 3am friday and saturday.
Are their night buses afterwards? Whats the situation with taxis like?
There's also a few really big clubs throughout the city.
What are the big clubs like? Are there big techno/house clubs? Where are the better ones and what are they called (so i can google)
Not much live music, almost 0 big concerts, very few good comedy shows...People in DC aren't really into the (supposed) Manhattan "stay-out-all-night" thing. The night ends at 2:30 and then you go home.
that kindof sucks.