Law School 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 - Liz Lemon

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Death sentences for rapists
« on: March 11, 2009, 09:53:22 AM »
I don't think death is alway necessary, but I think it should be an option.  If you consider how rapists are usually repeat offenders, a death sentence could have a dimunitive/prohibitive effect, as well as a retributive effect.

The option of death for rape in the above situation exists in three-strikes laws, which are problematic for a number of reasons. If by "dimunitive/prohibitive" effect, you're talking about a deterrent effect, the death penalty for murder doesn't even accomplish that.

I meant repeat RAPE offenders.  By taking the life of a bona fide rapist, you are diminishing (in this case, altogether eradicating) the capacity of that individual to rape, which would be a diminutive/prohibitive effect.

I suppose life w/o parole would achieve the same end.  

I'm not trying to wax all philosphical, but hearing about rape gets my blood boiling.  I understand it's not good for me to think so retributively, but I'm just trying to talk it out.    

personally i don't support the death penalty under any circumstance.  it's a costly means of revenge and not justice.  repeat rapists need to be put away for life with no chance of parole.  i also find it very bothersome that these people get away with lighter sentences than others or get released on parole only to commit the same crime again.


I whole heartedly believe that one's passion for law should be completely discounted.  I love art yet there's no art school in America that should want me.  However, an application that stinks of bad intentions should be discounted.  I doubt many of these make it to the desks of adcoms, but I could imagine if an adcom could determine "she doesn't know what the hell she's getting into or even why she should want to...", it is possible that in a borderline situation, they could be scared of the possibility that this applicant won't be successful. 

If personal statements mean anything, we have to assume that personality and one's narrative matter.  Although there's no real evidence suggesting that PS's mean much :)

this is definitely what i was trying to say from the beginning but apparently it came out as if i am passionately in love with the law.  for the record, i hate to kill a mockingbird; i don't see what all the hype is about.


Well, those things can lead to presumptions, too. I mean, in all fairness, someone who has been unemployed may have thought really hard about applying several years ago but got a job offer that was just too hard to pass up. Or maybe they deferred with an intention to return and then had a family tragedy (like I did). I don't want to lump everyone who applies b/c of the economy into one group. I just hope the adcoms are fair to reapplicants.

you're right, it was wrong of me to lump people together.  most people need a layoff or a change in circumstance to figure out what best suits them.  i seriously only meant that i hope admissions can see through people who are going to law school just to hide from the job market.  there are people out there (and i know quite a few) who are looking for the easiest and most profitable degree they can get because their plans have been thwarted by the economy.  they don't care what they do, but as long as they are in school  their parents can foot the bill for their living expenses and they don't have to worry about being unemployed for long periods of time.  i have to imagine this is a situation that will be affecting many areas of continuing studies outside of law, including nurses, teachers, and accountants.

i think it can bring down the integrity of a school if a good portion of students are just there to hang on until the job market improves, but it's not like i really expect admissions to change on this basis.  in the interest of avoiding another tirade from heartbreaker, let me emphasize that i understand realities of the situation here and clearly anyone with a higher score deserves to get in more than i do.

i never said that i love the law, just that my desire to change careers was not economically motivated.  you made some pretty bold assumptions.

What really sucks is that waitlisted students are going to have to wait really dep into the summer for that annual trickle-down effect. And like I said, many of these applications are going to be from people who never thought about being lawyers before. Some will be people who SOULD have done it in the first place, so that's good. But I hate the fact that people who really want this are going to unfairly be left out. Only 1/4 of all applicants in any year get into even one school, and that isn't going to improve over the next few years.

yeah, i was always toying with the idea of law school and my cousin (a recent Wake Law grad) encouraged me to just take the LSAT and see where i'd end up.  this happened well before the economy blew up.  now here i am, i want to be in law school very badly and the economy has nothing to do with it.  i have a stable job, everything is just great for me career-wise but even though i'm succeeding and ahead of the game at my company i really don't want to do what i'm doing for the rest of my life.

i'm hoping admissions can see through people who are just applying because of the economy.  i mean if you have a guy who majored in finance and hasn't worked since lehman brothers collapsed you kind of have to assume he's not applying because he just loves the law that much.  same goes for people who graduated a year or two ago and have long periods of unemployment on their resume.  i'm just going to apply as soon as i can and hope i can break past the clutter.

Law School Admissions / Re: 167 = Terrible Score
« on: March 09, 2009, 01:50:49 PM »
this has to be a flame.  our friend has only one post and has yet to defend himself or elaborate on where he got rejected from.

So according to the NLJ, apps are up, but applicants aren't:

Also, 11% more people took the February LSAT, leading them to speculate next year will be a big year.

f my life :(

Law School Admissions / Re: W on transcript
« on: March 08, 2009, 07:16:09 PM »
thanks for the advice.  i've always been curious because it was a legal research class and i thought it might look bad.

Law School Admissions / Re: W on transcript
« on: March 08, 2009, 05:26:34 PM »
yes! my school kind of sucked because the add/drop period lasted for exactly one week, but my legal research class met only once a week.  the first time it met was the last day of the add/drop period and i didn't realize how difficult it would be for me to handle everything until a week after add/drop ended.  it's something that's always frustrated me; it's my only W.

Law School Admissions / Re: W on transcript
« on: March 08, 2009, 05:11:48 PM »
even if this is a flame, i have my own question about a W.  during my senior year, i tried to take a legal research class but this ended up accounting for my 6th class, so i had 18 credits.  i really couldn't balance the workload and the class essentially became an elective.  at the same time, it really couldn't be taken pass/fail (it was structured so that you either got an A or failed).  all of my other classes had to be taken to complete my major on time so i had to withdraw after a week.  do you think an addendum on my applications will be enough?  i feel like withdrawing from legal research could be a red flag but i also think my reason was very legit.  thoughts?

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21