In addition, is it not the case that some people do not get called but have been admitted? They are just accepted?
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 - meggo
« on: October 16, 2008, 04:57:48 PM »
Yes. The bigger the company the more likely it is that they have international employees and have dealt with the process of acquiring visas
« on: October 16, 2008, 12:52:20 PM »
It depends on your citizenship - if you are Canadian or Mexican you could be sponsored under the TN visa scheme.
At the end of the day, this is a risk of studying internationally. However, there is a vast difference between someone not wanting to sponsor a visa for a administrative or paralegal (it really wouldn't make sense to do so) versus sponsoring someone who is highly skilled for a specific position (ie lawyer). That is honestly a bridge you will have to cross when you come to it, and I'm sure others can provide more solid advice, but from what I've read/seen, I don't believe you will have a problem.
I agree, I think these two things complement each other and are not at odds. Scott's comment is from back in 2003 and I wouldn't be surprised if he had changed it by now. Regardless, the world he occupies (and did occupy as a retailer) and the dress codes that are acceptable are quite different than law firms, conservative or otherwise.
Quite frankly, I think dressing (for men and women) should be an extension of who they are and their work ethic; crisp, tailored and of excellent quality. I think the analogy to London is excellent, since a lot of British men will wear bright socks, ties or whatever with their suits yet they are still very formally dressed. For the best dressed men, it is unusual or beautiful details that make an outfit and I think professionally these people are seen as more capable. I mean if the choice is between a guy in a crisp tailored black suit, interesting details, or a guy in a schlumpy grey suit, I'd choose the former. This is so basic and yet so many people reject it. People who are dressed better get further ahead.
I would also say however that it depends on your own sartorial nature and confidence. It's obvious when one looks uncomfortable in what they are wearing and developing adventurous details is cultivated over time, imo.
I would argue it depends on the width and bluntness of a square toe in regards to trendiness, though I agree with the sentiment. The preferred (imo) would be a slightly rounded almond toe. Because likewise, if the toe is too round it comes off a bit more 'bought these Rockports at Sears' as opposed to conservative dress shoe. If you are going to go down the unembellished route (and I agree this is probably the most conservative) you really need to focus on the craftsmanship of shape and leather, because there is nothing to hide behind. and totally agree with EC re: leather soles.
Johnny Cash - assuming your question isn't facetious, I enjoy enjoy clothing/fashion/retailing, though obviously am less versed in men's wear than in women's. I also help run a large and well known (in fashion circles at least) fashion forum
ah I was just coming in here to post the bluefly link! There are loads to choose from, I just would be wary of the pricing of their high end stuff (since often they increase the RRP to make it seem like you are getting a discount) as well the pairs with the very blunted square toes (which are just ugly).
My advice is buy the nicest (and by nicest I mean in terms of aesthetics and quality) that you can reasonably afford. I know it sounds basic but you want something that is nice and long lasting. And yes, people look at shoes. The people on here who say they are unimportant are, in my opinion, underestimating the importance of them. There are lots of sales going on at the moment (and will continue) so there's no reason you can't get a great pair of shoes at an excellent price.
I'm not as well versed in men shoes as I am in suits but I can tell you what I like Personally, I enjoy brogues or oxford laceups. Black, as others have said, goes well with grey and is a shoe color you should have in your wardrobe. Jil Sander makes some lovely men's shoes, and if you could find a pair of their shoes on sale, that would be a coup. Since Neiman Marcus and co. are being bastards and have gone to flash based sites, I can't post a pic but something in this style would be top. http://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/catalog/prod.jhtml?itemId=prod63060025&parentId=cat10650732&masterId=cat000550&index=1&cmCat=cat000000cat000470cat000526cat000550cat10650732
those are, incredibly expensive, but you should be able to find a cheaper version elsewhere. My advice is to look at high end shoes from brands that you enjoy, get a sense of the style and proportion that is suitable, and then find them cheaper.
You might try TJ Maxx as well. My boyfriend and I were at Winners (a Canadian version of the store) a couple weeks ago looking for shoes for him and they had a great pair of black Kenneth Cole shoes priced at $100.
« on: October 11, 2008, 07:01:46 PM »
I agree. Many schools accept the inverse (high LSAT, low GPA) but not the other way around which sucks as far as I'm concerned Other than re-taking the LSAT, the best thing you can do is to make the rest of your application as strong as possible to demonstrate that while your standardized test taking might not be good, the rest of you is beyond everyone else. Since you are coming from a nationally recognized school, it's better having a 3.95 from there as opposed to a 3.95 from some small school the adcomm's have never heard of. But as aforementioned, retake retake retake. And then go from there.