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 - USC313

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13
General Board / Re: Cause in fact vs. Proximate Cause
« on: November 05, 2011, 03:12:52 PM »
Looks like your getting in on this discussion about 4 years late Pdukes. Did you notice the dates on this thread? How the heck did you even find this thread lol. In any event, do you seriously not get the cause in fact/proximate cause distinction?

*Cause in Fact = "but for" a person's negligent act (i.e. "absent" or "without" a person's negligent act), injury or harm would not follow (i.e. "but for"  or "absent" or "without" Driver A running the red light drunk, Driver B would not have been injured. Cause in fact is that act which causes or results in an injury. What was that here? Running a red light drunk, which "caused" or "resulted in" another person getting hurt.

*Proximate Cause = was the injury that resulted from the negligent act "foreseeable" (i.e. is it "foreseeable" or "likely" or "logical" that a person who runs a red light drunk would hit another car and injure another? In these circumstances, any court would say "YES", particularly because of the well-known dangers of drunk driving.

Thus, the two parts of the "casuation" test are established. This is supposed to be easy stuff. Are you really not getting this?

General Board / Civil Procedure Question
« on: July 15, 2011, 05:09:30 AM »
If a plaintiff sues in federal court solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and the defendant impleads a party from the same state as plaintiff, will this destroy diversity and boot the whole lot out of federal court?

General Board / Re: Which type of law?
« on: October 23, 2010, 12:20:26 PM »
My point is simply this. If you plan, ahead of time, on attending law school and not practicing law, then that is a waste of time and money. I can understand those that attend law school with the intent of practicing law but end up taking a "non-traditional" path, as you call it, because some sort of opportunity came along (or, more likely in today's legal market, because they couldn't get hired as an attorney). But to go into law school without ever planning on practicing law is absolutely a bad choice. Why would such a person take the time to study torts, or civil procedure, or criminal procedure/criminal law, or countless subjects for that matter? And you can't even argue that taking "business-related" law classes makes sense, because there is a complete disconnect between being a "business person" and being a lawyer that practices commerical law. If law interests you that much but you do not plan on practicing law, then audit a class or something. Don't enroll in law school because you think a law degree is super-transferable to other fields. It's not. Law is a speciality and is best utilized by those who want to practice it. If this sounds like you, please save your time/money and allow a person that actually wants to practice your would-be seat in law school.

General Board / Re: Which type of law?
« on: October 22, 2010, 07:30:23 PM »
The point is, if I want to go to law school, I am going to go. That's that.  Regardless of employment prospects and ROI and any of that.

I'm sorry Angelvoice but that is one of the stupidest things I think I've read on here in a long time. Aside from the "I love the law" and "it's my dream to be a lawyer" rationalizations, why would you attend law school "regardless" of employment prospects and ROI? You're saying you would attend law school--despite the massive commitment of time and money--even if you knew you wouldn't be practicing law after you graduate? I thought the point of law school was to become a lawyer. Am I wrong?

General Board / Re: Which type of law?
« on: October 14, 2010, 11:25:08 AM »

Aside from all the flowery advice you've been given on this thread about the pros and cons of attending law school, a major CON left out (which this entire site systematically ignores) is that the employment prospects and salary expectations for most current law students are dismal. I encourage you to do a little investigation to get a better picture of what awaits law school graudates with outrageous student loan debt and little to no job prospects. Please have a look at what other legal message boards are talking about (which are a little more in tune with reality): (see the right hand column for further links) (see the recent article "Law Grads are Angry", left hand column
See also, Brian Tamanaham's (law professor at Washington University) letter to his piers:

The sad reality is that for the majority of people, law school has a horrible return-on-investement. Unless your admitted into a TOP school and will not be putting yourself into serious debt, I encourage you NOT to attend. It'll save you time, money, heartache, and stress that is not worth the $45K a year job that awaits you.

Widener U School of Law / Re: How was Widener TAP 2009?
« on: July 25, 2010, 10:35:11 PM »
Agree with downtrodden...again. Dapilamkid...please rethink attending this school. Unless you're on some sort of scholarship, you're going to end up with a mountain of debt no job prospects outside of practicing shitlaw.

Agree with Downtrodden. Don't attend...see "" for the truth about lower-ranked law schools.

General Board / Is law school a wise investment?
« on: June 23, 2010, 11:13:04 PM »
Sadly it's not. If you want to get the real scoop on whether law school is worth your blood, sweat, tears (and especially, money), please see the following:

This was also big news in the legal world about a week ago:

Please take the time to inform yourselves. It's curious that posters on here don't talk about this issue (the most significant to hit the lawyer profession in 20 years) more often.

Of course it's a plug.  The program helped me perform well last year.  Should I not discuss my experiences?

You're free to discuss whatever you want. It just was just strange to read such a detailed account of your experience with Law Preview. It was as if it was some sort of professional advertisement. Half-way through your post I began to think that you must be employed by Law Preview in some capacity to take the time include all those details. It just seemed less than genuine. But hey, don't take that personally. Maybe it's just testament to your writing abilities. I'm actually thinking of signing up for course this summer despite entering my 3L year ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13