« on: March 12, 2010, 12:17:15 PM »
in honor of march madness...
a bump for this thread.
a bump for this thread.
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 - just Trev
« on: December 12, 2009, 11:05:58 PM »
Damnit. I clicked the link.
god, my heart beats blue.
« on: November 15, 2009, 10:43:54 PM »
When I walked out to get some lunch, there were footprints along the ground in front of the windows, so I'm assuming the cop found what she was looking for.
this is a mistake. what if she didn't find it? you could be OH so high right now...
time to get down there in those bushes and start digging!
« on: November 03, 2009, 07:43:37 AM »
those schools are exactly where you should be looking. if i were you, i'd go ahead and send in the apps to UF, UGA, WF, and probably UNC. your lsat is already good enough for those schools (though UNC might reject/waitlist you for being out-of-state) and you can just tell them you're planning on re-taking in december.
the advantage of doing this is that you can hopefully get the early scholarship money. you mentioned you've already "confirmed LORs" with some of your professors. tell them to get started! those things take forever in most people's experience, and can hold up your whole application.
W&L, W&M, and Emory would be worth applying to even if you didn't improve your lsat score in my opinion. i had a 3.1/165 and got in at W&M.
that is all.
i have a student in my section who moved from japan the day before school started.
his english is terrible...i mean, barely recognizable as such.
when he got called on he asked what the word "criminal" meant.
the prof told him and that was the last of the questioning.
it was no big deal then, and it's no big deal now.
remember class participation means next to nothing (and absolutely nothing in most cases.)
« on: November 01, 2009, 04:13:42 PM »
best opinion ever:
5 Cal. 460.
"...If the defendants were at fault in leaving an uncovered hole in the sidewalk of a public street, the intoxication of the plaintiff cannot excuse such gross negligence. A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street, as a sober one, and much more in need of it."
Well put judge, well put.
« on: October 29, 2009, 11:19:39 AM »
i refuse to bump as you've asked.