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 - Mina
« on: February 25, 2008, 01:59:12 AM »
Thx for the good news big smile on my face see
, gpa is 3.44, I will work doubly hard, should I send in my app as early as possible, some of 'em start accepting the app in march? and when should I approach my prof.'s about LOR's and is there a special process, i.e. LSDAS, or is it informal? --M.
much thx for reply
« on: February 24, 2008, 10:29:42 PM »
I'm in BLS, i was part-time, after ten credits, I have a 3.45 GPA (maybe more, since I have a 3.5 in 6 credits, but a 3.35 in 4), This year I'm takin 16 credits, and plan on taking another 4 (torts) this summer; the summer course ends July the 10th (final exam). My questions are as follows:
(1) Am I barred from applying to skewls (t14) that req. a 28 credit minimum?
(2) practically speaking, do I just need all A's to transfer to a T14 this year?
(3) Can I figure out my rank as of now? (how do I factor it, where do i find out?)
(4) When should I send my applications to the schools? Is it a piecemeal deal, i.e. send out App. mail grade, mail letter, etc.
(5) Uhm, how do I go about asking for a letter of recommendation? (I have a bunch of professor's that really like me, or so I believe or think, since I particpate with analytic precision, should I be like hey write me a LOR?) Do I just ask for it? or must it be clandestine like LSDAS.
(6) My Undergrand GPA is rather putrid as with my Lsat, 3.4 // 161 (3.89 in my major, and I took a few grad. courses as well); how much of a factor is this?
(7) I'm also african-american; but in a more fluid meaning of the word (i.e. I'm from Egypt Africa's bread-basket) Should I check off that box?
How does one write a personal statement that is not transparent or prima facie fictitious?
An avid thank you for all responses--if any.
An apology to all derailed readers--if any.
I'm firm believe in Einstein's motto: "First, change the way you look at things--then watch'em change..."
« on: January 25, 2008, 07:32:36 PM »
Just got grade back fro' that test, & it was a B+!! Your support brought me some peace, (except that C srcasm), Please forgive me for doubting, I was tempted by the dark-side of the force: "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate"; now I've learned "control" or so I believe, Best Wishes to all--M.
« on: January 16, 2008, 12:02:19 AM »
I've reasoned that the socratic method, when concentrated, is purposely used by a professor to mislead his or her students.
Here is my logic:
(1) A socratic question neither declares nor clearly reveals.
(2) There are myriad of "correct" answers to the question--which can be either true or false (i.e. factual or absurdly detached from reality--e.g. hypoz).
[assumption #1: the question is never concerned with what the answer is, but that there is an answer]
(3) any answer will be used agst the student, i.e. verbal judo, via ad absurdum to cause an internal contradiction in logic. (Socrates himself did this, see Euthyphyro)
(4) Any question stopping or perfect answer, will cause a subject change, or over-abstraction leading to unrealistic or counter-intuitive results. [verbal-judo 2]
(5) It is impossible to test Law Students on final eam via Socratic dialogue.
[assumption # 2 is that arguing in lawyerly fashion, that is via dialectic, is not socratic but simply analyzing meritable counter-objections based on the course's law]
Therefore, Socratic reasoning confuses students by starting with a question that will knowingly lead to an error, & then replacing that error with another (i.e. another question.)
[ assumption # 3: a question that has no perfect answer, or cannot have one, will always have an erroneous answer regardless]
[assumption # 4: using a method that will confuse students on purpose is professor mischief]
My theory: professor's are there to help, law is a confusing matter as is, they should present diagrams, give us the context of the case, & suggest prominent theories or how a modern day lawyer/judge would think about this. further, they should be preparing us for the final exam, instead of getting us to try & learn specifics of every case--to withstand socratic torture--they should be providing us with clarity on the big picture, not detail-focused confusion or Socratic rubbish to fill their own egos, or make them appear smarter or the subject matter more complex than is or will become.
"The oracle of Delphi neither feels nor reveals, but gives a sign" --Heraclitus.
One may be tempted to equate "Socratic" professors with the ancient Oracle, all they're missing is a high-chair & sacrifice--they already have the prestige.
open to critiques/concurrences--M.
« on: January 15, 2008, 11:27:33 AM »
Contracts (K) is driving me crazy, there are way too many things to consider at any given moment/point, & the prof. refuses to teach us any theory--he presented 7, each with two-three paradoxes. I have a hornbook, its not really helpful but gives decent history of assumpsit & other analytically useless nonsense. How does one begin to think or understand analysis of K law?
« on: January 14, 2008, 01:24:17 AM »
First of all, THX to everyone on this forum u guys have been more than helpful.
Second, i want to transfer to NYU/colombia/Stanford/Fordham. I still dunno my grades, will find out tommorow, however my problem is a threshold matter. I'm in brooklyn law & am an african-american.
I was part-time student last semester & so was aminstratively enrolled to take only ten credits, tis semster I'm taking 16 credits--which brings me to total of 26. If i enroll in the summer I'll be able to take 5/4 more bring me to total of 30-31, however the problem with NYU/Colombia apllication is they specify a credit range i.e. from 28-33 & the app. deadline is due June 1 to July 15. My summer session would end july 15th. I was wondering what can be done? and if something can be done?
Further, is this retsri ction apllicable to fordham/Stanford since their is no mention of a credit range! Mu ultimate reason to transfer is I'd like to teach some day.
p.s. I was thinking of writing them a letter or something near the end of tis semester after I recieved my spring grades or in May but i worry this might exacerbate the matter ny bringing it to their undivided attention.
thx to all who reply.
« on: January 12, 2008, 03:47:20 PM »
you can still excel without over-work, people who over-study may lead to burn-out & stress, what you know is usu. not your enemy on the exam- (as long as you attended class, took notes, & daily reviewed them + outlined)-it's the ability to stay calm & focused under pressure that I've found is the key to excel.
« on: January 12, 2008, 03:41:17 PM »
I think relying on Siegel for your course may be detrimental since he is not your professor, & will not be reading your exam.
« on: January 11, 2008, 03:48:39 AM »
Hey I'm at BLS, what do I need to get to transfer to NYU or Fordham? -- & is transfer possible 2nd year? if so, will it have positive effect or be useless?
« on: January 11, 2008, 03:18:50 AM »
Yes, everyone has a lot of trouble. Just keep in mind justices are prone to jargon. When reading a case keep these three core ideas in mind.
(1) Con. law is about the REASONING & not the holding, cuz reason makes the test or doctrine for lower courts & the country. & the reasoning of the dissents.
(2) Con. Law arguments fall into 6 categories: I use mnemonic device "DEPTHS."
D = doctrine see above, create a legal principle from a bunch of cases
e.g. abortion is legal cuz of Roe v. Wade's rule.
E = Ethical arg. Individual rights, power not delegated to gov't. (bill of rights)
e.g. Did we ever give our gov't the power to execute some people?
P = Prudence arg. Economic costs, political cost (e.g. votes) & inter-
branch competence, in short, policy consideration/preferences.
e.g. Will allowing people to bear arms be efficient for Nat'l security?
T = Textual arg., Art I-VI, common understanding of text, rigid formalism.
Always ask, is what the fed. gov't doing written in the const'n or neccessary &
proper to carry out its enumerated powers?
e.g. Can congress tax only one Communist comic-book store in L.A.?
H - Historical arg. e.g. originalism (framer's intent) or legislative history.
e.g. Do all judges have to wear white-wigs?
S = Structural arg., Federlaism (the power of the State agst fed. gov't) &
separation of power (inter/intra-branch efficincy.)
e.g. can congress tell the president what to do?
Each argument used to justify Judicial review & each type is value netural.
(3) Con. Law theory: The Supreme Court always answers why in the hell it should grant review on a case & get involved, if there is original jurisidction its no problem, but if not they need to justify it. So while (1) is concened with "what" is law, & (2) is concerned "why" it is law, (3) is about why "should" unelected judges make this law.
* * *
Finally, a topic breakdown of Con. law is simple, just remember that our gov't is limited by a written Const'n, so for our Fed. gov't to do anything they need to use Art I-III, in short, the heart of con. law is the flow of those Articles. (Art I = Congress, Art II = Prez. & Art III = Judiciary). The states have GENERAL power unlike fed. gov't as long as they don't violate §9 (a decent metaphor is that the States are like the ocean the fed. gov't is like land--the ocean has dominion where there is no land--Tsunami's destroy land). Also, read anything the federalist Marshall writes at least thrice cuz he usu. sets the tone. (e.g. Gibbons sets tone for commerce, McCulloch sets tone for judicial review & implied fed. power, Marbury sets limits on S.Ct. power over the Prez., Johnson sets tone for property, OsBorne for fed. jurisidction etc. etc.)--hope tis helps,--M.
p.s. one more thing that confused the hell outta me, federalist = lover of Fed. gov't (.e.g Marshall) Federalism = lover of the states' oceanic autonomy.