I just got a call back even though I have a full beard. However, I'm thinking of shaving it before I go for the call back interview.
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.
I am starting law in the fall and plan on enrolling in the joint degree JD/MBA program. My intentions are to practice securities, corporate, and real estate law in a major metropolitan area. Most books I have read so far concerning securities regulation as well as the SEC's website looks favorably obtain the joint degree. I am wondering how you guys feel about the joint programs versus pursuing one or the other degree. I realize that a great deal of information is learned first hand on the job about securities but I think what is taught in the MBA program lays the foundation for what your mentors will teach you in the firm. Let me know what you guys think.
Uh...we already have PLENTY of gun control. So what if this guy followed the correct channels into getting a gun? I gaurantee that if he would have been disqualified for getting a gun because of his past mental status, he would have just bought the gun illegally. And there ar no "gun control" laws that would have stopped him.
My point is: if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they're going to commit a crime with a gun. If you're determined to do it, then it's going to happen.
You know it's illegal to commit murder right? Well it happens everyday, and our "murder control" laws don't stop it. I guess that we need more strict "murder" laws too now.
There's no law that will stop someone from being a psychopath.
However Torty, since you're mad about me making generalizations, I'd like to see what kind of "gun control" laws that you can come up with that will reduce gun crimes. Give some specifics, and stop being like Crazy Michael Moore and making your own generalizations about how stricter gun controll will fix everything.This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.
How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)
Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.
As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now? I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.
Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist.
First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it. We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems? Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter. Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody. So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little? I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations. I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen.
So you're part time and don't currently work? I don't know how admissions officers will read that, but I think it would seriously put your total first year grades in question. Yes, you did well while working 1st semester, but taking a less than full load while working against others taking a full load isn't entirely impressive.
It's like a football game where the starters on one team don't start playing until the 3rd quarter when everyone else is tired.
i'll bet john 259 thought that "Spinal Tap" and "Best in Show" were documentaries...he's the guy who can't quite figure out why Dwight of "The Office" is a funny character and laughs only when others in the room do. you are a fig newton of post-coital void man....a GW student trying to make a case for ND students and embarassing them in the process, beautiful...go put on your "rally cap" and Starter jersey and ogle some UG chicks or something.
If you remember enough from your FIRST YEAR contracts course to not take BARBRI for the bar exam, then you are incredibly amazing. Your first year is about figuring out how the law works, not remembering anything substantive.
Wow... I don't think I could possibly disagree more.
I certainly don't mean to imply that good class performance as a 1L will eliminate the need for a bar review course after graduation. However, Barbri is just that... it's a "review" course, not a "learn it for the very first time in a couple of weeks" course. The idea for a contracts review is to jog your memory on, for example, the rules for excluding parol evidence. If you've never even heard of "parol evidence", or never gained clarity from multiple contradictory explanations, how is a "refresher seminar" supposed to bail you out? It seems to me approaching 1L as just a time to practice IRAC writing would be awfully short-sighted.
I would definately not be shy about complaining, and I wonder what school you go to where the students would be intimidated or reluctant to do so.
I don't agree with the attitude that everyone is in the same boat, so it doesn't matter since you're all graded on the same curve. That's fine as far as competition, but for purposes of the bar exam (not to mention general practice) it would be nice to actually LEARN STUFF rather than just sit through a few months of class and collect your ranking number. How are the students supposed to master the material to their full potential if there is a dramatic change to the teaching style and curriculum emphasis every few weeks?
If this were mid-terms, I could understand throwing the original professor back into the mix. However, what on earth is the point of bringing him back in just to teach the final 3 weeks of class? The semester is essentially over at this point! There has to be some kind of political consideration there, because there certainly doesn't seem to be any consideration being given to the students. I wouldn't raise hell in an unprofessional manner, as life certainly isn't always fair... but I wouldn't hesitate to pass around a petition and take it to the administration if a sizable portion of the class signs.