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 - middlepath

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Law School Applications / Re: $$$$
« on: November 16, 2008, 08:27:06 PM »
I think commonsense and discretion goes a long way. For example, if I were to get the Emory $96K deal then I would probably say Emory ($$$) and if I got like, say, $15K at Vandy then I would probably say Vandy ($).

note: the sums above are 3-year totals. If Vandy was giving me $15K per year [by god] then I would say Vandy($$).

2
Listen, in the end, people are people. There's a reason for why Kantians and utilitarians haven't ever been able to agree. It's because there is truth in each theory. There is actually truth in most well-thoughtout social theories. Arguing to the death for any single one is pointless and really diverts attention from the fact that there are people out there who are experiencing poverty and depression and futile circumstances and this hand-wringing over philosophy does squat to help them.

Ouch, heartbreaker, you break my heart! What do I even say to this? Are you suggesting that debates about abstract values mean diddly-squat? And this so just because "there are people out there who are experiencing poverty and depression and futile circumstances"? Hmm...let's see here. How are the two connected, now?

Aren't we all so judgmental and quick to be self-righteous about our assumptions. If you think all that we should (all) be doing ever is helping (poor) people then I suggest you might want to take the lead by never engaging yourself in abstract debates [including this one] and go about the RIGHT and PROPER way you think one should help the poor and the disenfranchised. Really. I am not being sarcastic/acerbic. If that's your belief then you should just act, without ever deliberating more than is required to, well, just act.

In any case, I am not for arguing to death over anything. I don't take "theories" too seriously myself. But it is one thing to say this and quite another to insinuate that philosophers are hand-wringing smug elitists who can make no positive impact on poor people's lives [after all, that is the ONLY worthy impact that one ought to strive for, right?]. I would say such a belief is wrong on both counts.

3
Law School Applications / Re: Hard copies?
« on: November 16, 2008, 02:25:37 PM »
Just use LSDAS.

Not everything Anna Ivey says is gospel.

^TITCR

4
I have a feeling that the debate is not so much about legal positivism vs. natural law as about differences in justice principles. Btw, just to clarify, natural law theories did grow out of theological views [Aquinas]. But the 20th century resurgence of the camp is largely secular [Lon L. Fuller]. And then, to make matters more confusing, there's the so-called Dworkinian third theory which is, arguably, an extension of secular natural law theory. Hart would later claim that Dworkin is actually a positivist [I am writing a paper on all this so couldn't refrain from posting ;D]

But anyway, people probably are already bored with this. Heartbreaker already finds it funny that none of this matters in real life [although I am not so sure about that - I think it makes a whole lotta difference what legal theory a judge, or a jury for that matter, subscribes to, either knowingly or unknowingly. I don't know for sure, though. It's not like there's a whole lot of research and surveys about this and I could crunch some data to get to the results that I want  ;)].

Enjoy.

5
Folks, if I may,

This is a very engaging discussion. I think the OP is a Kantian through and through [although we can argue about that endlessly]. And the other posters, including dashrashi, are more on the consequentalist camp [very Millian in their outlook]. As such, it might seem dashrashi has the better claim to commonsense, since the commonsense nowadays is biased towards a consequentialist order of things. But I think the OP has some worthwhile arguments going for him. Let me summarize what his beliefs are [roughly put]:

1) There are universal laws. We should uphold these laws for the sake of upholding these laws [change 'laws' to 'morals' and you have Kant. Astute readers will perhaps note that 'laws' and 'morals' are not interchangeable; many have even argued that they should not be interchangeable - cf. legal positivism vs. natural law theories]

2) The biggest universal law is to maintain order, some kind of a harmony, a balance if you will [and this is kinda an extension of Kant, if you stretch his Categorical Imperative too far...a contentious claim, I agree, but we can debate this somewhere else].

3) If one can uphold 2) then one does 1)

4) A prosecutor can do 3)

5) Hence, I want to be a prosecutor.

I disagree with the premises [as many of you do]. However, dashrishi's beliefs aren't that alluring either. The following is a very rough summary of what I am guessing is dashrishi's beliefs [dashrishi's is a very complex view so the summary will be incomplete]:

A) What law is is one thing (i.e. whatever it is doesn't matter as far as its ontology goes; as will be clear below, dashrishi has some ethical theories going on about what law ought to be) but the practice of law quite another. The ground reality is all about putting the horse before the cart and not vice versa - prosecutors (or lawyers in general) are so overworked that all they want is the easiest way out and in that they end up compromising their carts [what I mean is, dashrishi holds that ppl like OP take theory to be apart and independent of the consequences of its breach but in reality theory takes the back burner. Think legal skepticism or even moral realism if you will. But dashrishi's view is more complicated than what, say, O.W. Holmes held]

B) The practice of law ought to be such that it yields the best possible results [i.e. the most amount of happiness overall, in an ideal world]. Unfortunately, because of the ground reality described in 1), we're not getting to the best possible world.

C) Hence, from A and B, we should actually be putting the cart before the horse but only that the cart should be a humanistic, utilitarian, and a liberal cart (as opposed to carts like that proposed by the OP). In other words, the ground reality ought to be the way I think it ought to be. And, "hey, OP, your proposal of the best possible ground reality is lousy and mine is much better - it is humanistic, it accounts for the socio-economic disparity, it is inherently more just etc."


I actually fall squarely on dashrishi's camp, even though I have been brutal about describing it. I just wanted to make a point that the argument is all about assumptions, assumptions, assumptions that we have. Some of us may have a greater claim to data analysis and "reality" out there while some of us may have a greater claim to "this is what it ought to be" pulpit views.

This lengthy exegesis just because many of you veered into metaethics and were making all sorts of wild claims about law and morality and, especially, about what morality is. There is always a danger of mixing what law is with what morality is. A lot of you seem to be moral realists and even moral factualists, including both the OP and the people opposing him. And this is where I hesitate to mark the OP off as some naive 19 yr old just weaned on Law & Order and such. I think his views mirror that of a LOT of people out there. That's the ground reality. Most are legal realists out there.

On the other hand, this post is probably making you  ??? and what not. This is what too much philosophy and too much Ramen noodles does to ya, as I mentioned in TLS earlier too. Fuggedaboudid y'all. Good luck on your apps.

6
Law School Applications / Re: Still "early" for applying?
« on: November 02, 2008, 02:39:26 PM »
Not late at all. Still very early. After all, I haven't sent in my apps yet. ;D

7
Law School Applications / Re: Why "X" essays?
« on: November 01, 2008, 07:02:27 PM »
Why X essays don't matter. Period.  You're in or you're not in.

Not really. I would say they matter if you're borderline and/or if you can come across as genuinely interested in being at the LS. However, it's also that they probably won't make much of a difference if you're above the median numbers. Also, you might want to note that I am talking about >T14 schools here. I don't know much about the top schools, esp. YHSCCNN, to assume that above-median numbers are auto admits.

I strongly recommend writing a Why X essay if and only if you have compelling (not to mention genuine) reasons Why X.

HTH.

Why X essays don't matter.  Period.

If you insist they don't and don't send one AND you don't get in, then they probably do matter. If you persist and send one anyway AND get in, they probably do matter as well.

A dose of fatalism: if they are to matter, they will. If they're not going to matter, they ain't going to matter. So what the hell. Just send one anyway (i.e. iff you are genuinely interested and have compelling reasons Why X).  ;)

Sort of like Pascal's Wager, with its flaws and all.

8
Law School Applications / Re: Why "X" essays?
« on: November 01, 2008, 06:50:20 PM »
Why X essays don't matter. Period.  You're in or you're not in.

Not really. I would say they matter if you're borderline and/or if you can come across as genuinely interested in being at the LS. However, it's also that they probably won't make much of a difference if you're above the median numbers. Also, you might want to note that I am talking about >T14 schools here. I don't know much about the top schools, esp. YHSCCNN, to assume that above-median numbers are auto admits.

I strongly recommend writing a Why X essay if and only if you have compelling (not to mention genuine) reasons Why X.

HTH.

9
YouSeeLA,

I had the same problem. Then I thought it was probably my browser screwing things up. I was using Chrome. What browser are you using? Because I then tried IE8 - and it was a disaster. The damn browser did not even let me "review app" - when I click on the review app hyperlink, the pop-up would take me to the LSAC homepage. So I decided that's that and loaded Firefox - the latest one. And it worked like magic.

So try Firefox, if you're not already using it.

I had thought that once you go Chrome you've found your home. I was wrong. Firefox 1-0 over Chrome.

10
Personal Statement / Re: Formatting question - Justify or Not?
« on: October 31, 2008, 03:13:57 AM »
Also,

Justify+Hyphenate vs. not-Justify+Hyphenate vs. not-Justify+not-Hyphenate?

Getting too late (it's past 2am here right now). Probably I am getting over-anxious. But your $0.02 would be extremely valuable, even in this economy [at least the gas prices are down].

Pages: [1] 2 3 4