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 - oiuiuko
« on: July 20, 2012, 12:20:38 PM »
Thanks for your input, Robwreck. I have read a handful of important cases (Palsgraf, VW v Woodson, Int'l Shoe, etc) and I completely agree with you that really reading the cases gives you a deeper understanding of the material. I'm going to work on my case briefing skills more before 1L starts to shorten the learning curve.
« on: July 19, 2012, 10:01:54 PM »
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jack24. I'm 4 years out of school, so I'm hoping 0L will help me to get back into student mode as well.
Would you please elaborate on why you think learning Erie Doctrine now would be a waste of time? I learned the overall gist Erie, jurisdiction, discovery, etc thinking that it will provide a foundation to work from.
I would appreciate your insight on why I might be wrong. You speak from experience, I'm a total noob.
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:19:27 AM »
The Julie-izer machine has a LONG way to go...
« on: July 17, 2012, 11:48:05 AM »
Thanks, FalconJimmy. I'm surprised at how seemingly few people do 0L prep. Even a large number of the people at Law Preview were on Facebook, surfing the web, instant messaging, etc.
Until school starts, my focus is to use practice exams to guide studying the BLL.
« on: July 17, 2012, 01:52:27 AM »
I've completed a substantial load of 0L prep - read all the E and E's for my 1st semester courses, the Acing Series, Flash Cards, Practice Exam Hypos LEEWS, Law Preview, Delaney, etc. Most would say doing this is a bad idea, others will say it'll be helpful. Either way, doing this before law school even starts has helped me to learn more about myself.
Anyone else doing 0L before law school starts in August?
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:47:46 AM »
The LSAT is an incredibly important filtration system. Is it a good predictor of law school success or eventual success as an attorney? I really have no idea. If you are smarter than average and you work hard, you can do very well in law school with a little bit of luck.
The attorneys who seem to find the most success financially are those rising stars at big firms, great entrepreneurship who build small firms and make money off their staff and associates, or brilliant salesmen. I know several PI attorneys who are filthy rich and they hardly do any of the actual legal work. I know one brilliant estate planning attorney who works at a medium firm and has a great reputation. He makes just over $80,000 a year (decent for the market). I know another estate planning attorney who is pretty dumb and procrastinates everything, but he manages to bring in clients who contest wills and he gets paid a 33% contingency on what he gets for them. His take home last year was $400,000 +.
I worked for a medical malpractice attorney while I was studying for the bar. He worked about 20 hours a week, but he settled a 5million+ med mal case. (Translation, he took home 1.5 million.) He shares a secretary with some other solos and pays $800 a month in rent.
My point is that financial success may have a lot more to do with your personality, work ethic, and even luck than it does with intelligence. So it's possible that the LSAT is a decent indicator if intelligence even if it's not correlated with law school success or career success.
Your argument is assuming that these lawyers did not score exceptionally well on the LSAT.
« on: June 04, 2012, 09:26:29 PM »
I chose A. Knowing what to look for in incorrect answer choices allowed for process of elimination:
B. Because there's no mention of Spring, any inference you try to make about it will be a logical leap from the stimulus, and therefore highly suspect
C. When the language is this extreme, you must not select it unless there is direct evidence for the claim in the stimulus
D. A Logical leap without evidence in the stimulus.
E. No evidence for this statement in the stimulus.
« on: May 31, 2012, 01:35:17 PM »
Anti - Once again, you're writing nonsense. It seems english isn't your 1st language. You never passed the bar, did you?
« on: May 31, 2012, 12:10:44 AM »
Anti, calling someone names is abusive. Therefore calling someone a troll is abusive. Do you follow my reasoning? I hope that's not an overload.
I "chose to re-interpret [your] statement literally." How was I supposed to interpret it? Was I supposed to ignore the nonsense pervading the literal context and only consider the irrational, whiny emotional undertones?
To correct you again, some people with more than 2 brain cells may in fact believe that law and entertainment have nothing to do with each other; people can be incredibly ignorant. Consequently, when I don't know you and I read your silly post for the first time, I have no reason to assume that you aren't as ignorant and/or stupid as your post reads.
The basics of writing in English stipulate that your words be intelligible when interpreted literally if you want people to understand you. Let me know if that's not clear - I'm willing to work with you on this.
Your ability to communicate effectively in writing evinces your quality as a legal practitioner and advisor to prospective students. The kids here better listen up.
I would explain to you how an education in entertainment can create a similar amount of debt, but I'm afraid that informing you will lead you to actually back up your claims in the future with evidence, instead of just shooting from the hip - something that would take away much of the 'charm' that made your original post so much fun to tear apart.
« on: May 30, 2012, 10:32:04 PM »
Anti09 - Do not insult me on this forum with name calling. You will be reported for abuse. Be frustrated not with me, but with your own failure to communicate effectively in writing. To refresh your selective memory:
You said, verbatim: "the entertainment industry has nothing to do with the legal industry." Yes, you actually wrote this.
You also said, verbatim: "a law degree puts you potentially a quarter million dollars in debt whereas the entertainment industry doesn't." This statement is absurd at best because it implies that an education in entertainment cannot potentially put you in just as much debt as a law degree when in reality it can. Disagree with my interpretation of what you said? Read your statement again. You are taking issue not with me, but with the most basic elements of english writing and logical reasoning. Own up to the fact that your statements were absurd and you simply got called out on it.