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 - LoverOfWomen

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17
111
The solution is for the ABA to stop approving so many schools.  Seriously, T3 and T4 schools are essentially worthless to the profession.  I would say even most schools outside of the T6 probably are. 

In the meantime, depressed law students will just have to get by on this:



what school do you go to loverofwomen?  honestly i am tired of your idiotic spam posts on this website and i wish you would be removed for advertising porn on a discussion board.  how in the hell do you expect a legal system to survive with 6 law schools providing lawyers?

I'm not "advertising" porn; the link just failed.  There was a picture of a beautiful woman earlier.  I apologize that there is no longer.  Besides, it was topical--I pointed a means depressed law students could use to get by.

I said most schools outside of the T6 are worthless.  The leaders in the profession are effectively these six schools.  The other eight of the T14 are OK, but could use a boost in their standards.

Many graduates of T3/4 and even some T1/2 schools are unable to find work without graduating above a certain decile level.  A lot aren't able to even pass the bar.  This is in contrast to medicine, where even an average student at an unknown (but accredited) school can find good work.

The ABA should stop approving so many schools, as I said earlier, but it should also crack down on those which refuse to raise their standards.  Honestly, if your school's bar passage rate is below, say, 90%, the school isn't doing it's job (recruiting and training effective lawyers) and should be denied ABA accreditation.

112
General Board / Re: Government Law Jobs
« on: March 30, 2006, 05:42:33 PM »
Exuse me jerk off?  Actually I work for one of the three largest agencies in terms of assets.  No need to get nasty as#hole.

Also, if your DOJ position requires a top secret clearance you will have people getting interviewed that you lived by.  Any top secret clearance goes through a single scope background investigation.  However, you are correct, without SCI there will be no poly.

Quit acting like you know what you are talking about.  I have actually been through a clearance process, hold clearance, and know what I am talking about jerk off.

Oh, and top tier and Yale are two totally different categories.  For not being literal, you sure said it like it was gospel. 

This is some funny pwnage.  I especially liked the last two lines.

silvercannonca, for someone so obsessed with intelligence (almost every sentence contains some snide comment about stupidity), your writing skills are amazingly crappy.

113
General Board / Re: Pepperdine went down 10 spots...
« on: March 30, 2006, 05:35:45 PM »
Honestly most firms don't care about the specific number, just the tier with the exception of top 14.  Thus firms see T14, tier 1, 2, 3, 4.  Granted there are exceptions but most firms will not care if your ranked 77 or 87, its when you drop out of the top 100 when it can hurt you.  I do however find it ironic that most law schools sign a paper saying they do not like the rankings, yet many send out explanations to alumni when they drop.  Also someone said their dean sent out a letter saying they had moved up to 80 I believe from T3.  Ironic the Depaul dean signed a letter against rankings, yet sends out a letter bragging about the jump. Be proud of the jump, but dont say you disagree with them, thats sending out conflicting messages.

 http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=lsac/deans-speak-out-rankings.asp

click on the link: this letter has been endorsed by the following deans.
 


It's perfectly possible not to like the artificial pressures and constructions the ranking system places, while at the same time maintaining a realistic appraisal of their importance in the admissions process.  I don't see it as at all contradictory.

114
General Board / Re: Government Law Jobs
« on: March 30, 2006, 08:05:40 AM »
What kind of background checks are involved with the DOJ?  Do you have to have been squeaky clean, never arrested at all, only seen drugs in the movies, etc.?  Does the whole department screen similary to the FBI?

Because umm... a friend of mine wanted to know.

You don't have to be clean, just honest.  I had a handful (gross understatement) of "youthful indescretions) and I had absolutely no problems during my clearance process.  However, honesty is key. 

Yes, I suppose it could depend on whether the drug use was definitely in the past and if you have a clean record afterwards.  I'm assuming, though, that such use has to be outside of the seven year interval they give for background checks?  That's what I've been able to find on the DOJ website, at least.

In any case, Erapitt is right.  However matters stand, hiding it will only make things worse. 

115
General Board / Re: Procrastinators Unite!
« on: March 30, 2006, 05:57:37 AM »
Why don't you look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary?  Of course I know what insatiable means.   It's probably a 10th grade vocabulary word, oh learned one.  You are so out of touch with what's going on it's freakish.  You actually think that you are teaching me vocabulary?  "Insatiable"? ?

You are your biggest fan.  You claim to have regular sex.  Congratulations, no one cares.  You dumb down these boards with porn star pics on EVERY thread.  Grow up.  You claim to have an interest and appreciation for the "female form" as an artist, which consists exclusively of fake porn unmentionables.  You and every other 16-year old. You are a self-proclaimed "connoisseur" of women because you collect porn and know every porn star by name.  Bordering on creepy.  And finally, you try SO hard to use big words that you think no one else could possibly have your 10th-grade vocabulary, and you forcefully and deliberately inject words in sentences to create awkwardly flowing phrases like "the gift of subtextual idiocy." and flowery ones like "pray tell", not to mention following the words "hooking up" with "insatiable sexpots."

Then, you think no one has EVER heard of words like "insatiable" and "hedonism" (oh please educate us with your vast knowledge of Greece.  Are you for real or what?  This is a law school message board!).

Everything about you is transparently fake.  Your user name is LoverOfWomen for Christ's sake.  Even your "plan" of working with Hollywood actresses or porn stars as an entertainment lawyer is the law school equivalent of "I want to be a spaceman when I grow up because I want to go to outer space!!"

Fake.  Pathetic.  In fact I am having a hard time believing you are even in law school at all.  I am starting to have the sinking and embarrassing feeling that I have actually been  bickering with a high school student.

Given how grossly you misinterpreted my post (in fact, you gave "insatiable" the opposite meaning), it was very possible that you didn't have the vocabulary of a 10th grader.  Your rant about beautiful women and the supposed crime of my purple prose--on the hedonism point, I didn't care to educate you about Greece; you completely missed the allusion to Walter Pater--strikes me as frustration more than anything else.  I've already explained my position, but I suspect that no amount of discussion will appease you.  In that case, I'll simply ignore your little tantrum.  Perhaps at some later point, when you are less easily annoyed, you will see how silly you're acting.

If you don't like my career plans, that's your deal.  I chose to incorporate legal studies with an existing interest of mine.  I really don't see why this bothers you so much, and at this point, I really don't care.

To move this conversation back to more topical ground, I'm playing Monopoly.

116
General Board / Re: Procrastinators Unite!
« on: March 30, 2006, 03:42:40 AM »
You're right.  I don't know what f**cking "insatiable" means. 

Ah, well you ought to have availed yourself of a dictionary.  Keep that memo for the future.

Consider if I served up the following, out of the blue, in the middle of a discussion about exam stresses:

"Personally, I've been blowing off a little steam between the sheets.  Lucky for me, the last few days my girl just can't get enough of it!"


Would I sound like:
A) A pathetic loser
B) A self-deprecating funnyman(?)
C) A liar
D) An awkward dork



Considering that you wrote the quote, I'd pick (E) "All of the above."  However, given the original context of my statement, if I were you, I would shrug and laugh.  Probably throw a friendly jab about not being able to satisfy a woman.  But that's because I don't take myself so seriously. 

You, on the other hand, should get some.  It'd make you much less of a crab, ya know.

117
General Board / Re: Procrastinators Unite!
« on: March 30, 2006, 03:14:43 AM »
Get the point.  Pay attention.

You seem to think that I am bothered by a discussion of sexuality. I have not once suggested this. I could care less if you said sex was a pastime (on topic).  What you did was imply that you keep women satisfied.  Ummm okaaaaayy, thanks for the update, freak.  A little off topic.

I think you sound pathetic because you are actually trying to offer details about some girl's sexual appetite out of the blue.  The earlier posters were at least on topic and it was funny.  Yours was just weird.  You went the extra step of trying to add a little commentary on your prowess.  It looks contrived because you just slipped it in there like it it ain't no thang.  You my friend, are special. 

Haha, if you read an implication about my "prowess" into that, you have the gift of subtextual idiocy.  All I said was that a particular girl was "insatiable."  Now, if you actually understood what that word meant, you would realize that "incapable of being pleased or satisfied" (a rough definition of insatiable) suggests nothing about my prowess.  In fact, you might logically conclude the opposite (i.e., that I was incapable of satisfying her sexually).  If anything, it was a self-deprecating comment.

This is a lovely illustration of why English should be taught more often.

118
General Board / Post-LS career plans?
« on: March 30, 2006, 03:04:35 AM »
I'm planning to go into entertainment law, probably with an emphasis in film or publishing.  The only downside would be that I'd have to relocate to the West Coast, although New York has some good options.  In any case, it seems like a fairly lucrative field, plus I would have the chance to work on a subject I really care about (art). 

What are everyone's career plans for after law school and why?

119
The reason law students are more depressed then med students is because even the bottom student that makes it through medical school becomes a doctor with the first job paying 6 figures.  the law student knows the chance of waiting tables is very real and even if you get a job, very good chance you'll end up working for a tyrant.  hmm, bleak future for most law students versus very bright future for med students.  i wonder why law students are depressed

The solution is for the ABA to stop approving so many schools.  Seriously, T3 and T4 schools are essentially worthless to the profession.  I would say even most schools outside of the T6 probably are. 

In the meantime, depressed law students will just have to get by on this:

EDIT: I removed the image because it turned into an advertisement, not a picture as I had originally intended.  I apologize.

120
General Board / Re: Lexis or WestLaw?
« on: March 30, 2006, 02:46:33 AM »
I use WestLaw exclusively but for no good reason, really.  It was the first one I used at the beginning of my first semester and so I have always been somewhat comforted by the familiarity of it I guess.  I hope I am not missing something(!)

I use both, but I don't think you're hurting terribly if you miss LexisNexis.  If you're more comfortable with WestLaw, no harm in sticking to it.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17