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 - louiebstef

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16
21
Law School Applications / Re: 2010-2011 Application Cycle
« on: December 23, 2010, 05:38:29 PM »
Nealric,

Thanks.  Much of that was truly uncalled for.

22
Law School Applications / Re: 2.7 undergrad GPA 3.4 MS and 3.7 PhD LSAT 142
« on: December 23, 2010, 11:02:39 AM »
Tossy,

<applause>

23
Law School Applications / Re: 2010-2011 Application Cycle
« on: December 23, 2010, 11:01:30 AM »
Mandamus,

For shame!  Marcus and Megan (poor slimy civilians) are dead RIGHT.  What happened to your military bearing?  Your poor grammar, hostile tone and general lack of intelligence paints a negative picture of veterans.  A veteran should stand out as an example of comportment and character.  You do neither.

I personally do not care for your condescension.  People here like Megan and Marcus are sharing, being positive influences.  What are you doing?  Are you using using this site as a type of twisted gestalt therapy?

Please find somewhere else to be negative.

/louiebstef
CWO4, USN (ret.)

24
Law School Applications / Re: 2010-2011 Application Cycle
« on: December 21, 2010, 01:50:45 AM »
Marcus,

Repeat after me (phonetically):

GeeeeeeORRRRgETowwwwwnnnnnnn

;)


25
Law School Applications / Re: 2.7 undergrad GPA 3.4 MS and 3.7 PhD LSAT 142
« on: December 20, 2010, 04:00:05 PM »

Unfortunately, I pretty much agree with you.  Until you can at least post an LSAT over 150, that 142 along with the 2.7 GPA is going to kill you.  I recommend taking an LSAT prep course.  If you can boost your score into the middle 150s, you'd stand a much better chance of gaining admission. 

26
General Board / Re: Dress Shirts
« on: December 17, 2010, 10:21:15 PM »
Marcus,

Being probably 20 years (or more) older than you, you'll be surprised to know I am built pretty similarly, about 5'9", very wide shoulders, about 225, and 20% bodyfat.  I indeed always have trouble with anything off the rack.  Anything wide enough in the shoulders is too wide in the girth.  "I feel ya," as they say.

I am not in a position to be able to afford true bespoke suits (yet!).  If you do have the money, I would go ahead and invest in one good interview suit.  You can go one step below bespoke (what I do), and go "made to measure."  The cut and material are a bit less expensive than bespoke (maybe $400-$600), yet still better than "off the rack" for us hard to fit folks.    Sure, I'd love to snag a bargain suit off the rack for $175, but with my fitting challenges, it just doesn't happen.

I always think that the "suit mafia" is against us stocky muscled guys......


27
General Board / Re: Dress Shirts
« on: December 17, 2010, 05:51:29 PM »
I feel my best when I am dressed in a suit.  Anytime I had doubts about heading to law school (doubts as in can I succeed) by placing a suit on me, my confidence increased and I knew I could.

So Thane, are you saying a monogram can set me apart from the crowd?  I have dress shirts, which I get tailored as well as my suit due to my wide back and narrow waist (44v33) that do not contain monogram.  So would it behoove me to get a few shirts with a monogram?  IF so, button or french cuff?

Sorry for all the questions.  I prefer to stand out among the crowd, and I always appreciate knowledge from those such as yourself and Louiebstef/

Marcus -

Yes, and not necessarily in a good way.

I would tend to agree with louieb:  In general, both French cuffs and monograms are probably overdone, possibly fatally so. 

One point is, of course, your feeling as the interviewee. So if you feel naked without cuff links or monogram, that's certainly on the plus side. 

The other side of the equation, however, is how you would be perceived.  My guess is that, with most interviewers, both would be seen as out-of-place.  It's entirely fine (but not required) to wear cuff links on the job; ditto for monograms.  Both are, however, a bit affected, depending upon the crowd.  (Secretaries will make fun of you until you're at least a senior associate; do not wear either as a summer or new associate.) In an interview room, among students (most of whom are obviously playing dress up because they have to) . . . chances are the effect would be negative, not positive. 

A third point:  interviewers should focus on personality.  Positive personality.  Something that tells them, "Gosh, I sure wish we had more colleagues like [fill in your name here] at the office!"  Clothing should be invisible.  Well, not literally.  Clothing should NOT be an issue, in any sense.  Thus, on balance, I would likely agree that both French cuffs and monograms are probably more risky than they're worth.  Monograms can be fine if you leave your jacket on, as you should, but even there it's still chancy if it's seen and if the interviewer's response is some mental version of a raised eyebrow, as it might well be.  See point on "Gosh...," above.  Better to wear a super quality conventional shirt that makes you feel grand all the same.  = :   )

Thane.

Marcus,

Thane, as usual, eloquently framed what I was reaching to express.  The net sum gain of the risk of seeming a bit pretentious is just not worth it.  Funny enough, I mentioned our posts to my wife, and told her exactly what Thane expressed-you want your dress to be very subtly received.  You want the focus to be on you.  Any distraction from that is not a good thing.  Being either slightly over or under dressed can be a distraction.

28
General Board / Re: Dress Shirts
« on: December 16, 2010, 06:22:55 PM »
Marcus,

You may want a shirt or two with french cuffs, but they are a bit overdone sometimes.  I'd skip the monograms, personally.  Spend your money
on quality accoutrements such as elegant cuff links, really good dress shoes (Florsheim/Bostonian), etc.  Tailoring is extremely important.  Most men are painfully unaware when they are walking around in an ill-fitting suit.  What you are looking for is understated elegance.  Fine tailoring goes a long way toward that end. 



 

29
I was educated by the Jesuits in high school, but went on to a public undergrad.  Would love to revisit the Jesuits at GULC....

30
Law School Applications / Re: 2010-2011 Application Cycle
« on: December 15, 2010, 08:26:01 PM »
My thoughts exactly.  I think you will do very well there.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16