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 - Yoda, Esq.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 
« on: August 01, 2006, 11:15:21 PM »
I think Stanford's reputation is closer to Columbia/Chicago than it is to Yale/Harvard.
Stanford is the cusp. It bridges the great kings (Yale/Harvard) to the rest of the nobles (UChicago, Columbia) and straight on down the line until you hit the plebs like Cooley. I'd consider Stanford as far above Chicago/Columbia as it is below Harvard/Yale.
« on: August 01, 2006, 11:07:21 PM »
When I told my parents I was going to law school they said I had to "put them in a good home."
I told mine I was just going to wait until they were partially senile and drop them off on the side of a road with no ID. When they got offended I just said 'What, it's not like you'll know the difference'. I'm a bad child.
« on: August 01, 2006, 11:02:52 PM »
Before there can be an intelligent response to your question, you need to take a full-length timed practice test and see what your score is.
If you start out in the mid-160's then you should be fine...but anything lower will most likely mean that 2 months is not enough.
December is still a good date for the LSAT for the 2006-07 admission cycle....I actually took the February 2006 test and got admitted for fall of 2006.
I'm going to have to disagree. Score growth is obviously going to depend on the individual, and on whether you're doing nothing but studying, or working as well. But I went from a low 150's to a 170 in one and a half months of pure studying. From my experience, LSAT score growth is less about having time to take countless practice tests (though it helps) than it is about having the devotion to get into the problems and really see where you're messing up.
Not to mention, the OPost had nothing to do with an ideal score range or even timing pressures, but just how to motivate himself/herself to study.
« on: August 01, 2006, 10:32:20 PM »
A school asked for an addendum regarding my app (tier 1, if it matters) and specifically said that they were looking for lawyerly writing. Which in my case did not mean fancy latin, but short and clear. They wanted me to say it as concretely as possible in as little space as possible. I get the impression that even an addendum can be a chance to impress your potential to a school.
« on: August 01, 2006, 10:29:21 PM »
Ha. I really want to leave the internet message boards. I hate this addiction.
Set up your keyboard to give you nasty electric shocks. That'll curb the habit.
« on: August 01, 2006, 10:21:25 PM »
Oingo nailed it on the head. I was seriously considering lower ranked schools because of considerations of family, where I wanted to live, debt after graduation, etc.
As for tier 5's, I think it would just be the ABA un-approved.
« on: August 01, 2006, 10:16:33 PM »
I had a similar situation, needed a good LSAT (and luckily got it). Studying wasn't a problem though, I knew how much was riding on the test. With a low GPA your LSAT will determine not just if you go, but whether it's a tier 4, or a tier 1 with scholarship. Spend some time focusing on what the test means to your future, and why you want to go to law school. Motivation should follow if you truly understand the impact of the test on your future.
It may also help to take a free 'practice test' through someplace like Kaplan - give you a feel for the big day. Two months is plenty of time though - good luck!
« on: August 01, 2006, 10:12:53 PM »
I had a tough time convincing the local DMV of it when I moved and needed a new license. They took everything short of DNA samples and still looked at me like I was a fraud.
"Oh yes, we'll TAKE your birth certificate, SS card, old driver's license, mailings, rental lease, library card, and left big toe... oh yes, we will - but we're WATCHING YOU, because we KNOW you're faking!"
I honestly think the whole time I was doing the written test they were just looking for an excuse for a rectal exam.
« on: August 01, 2006, 10:09:05 PM »
My friends and family all get the 'Will you buy me a car?" look in their eyes, and I have to pry them off me with an ice scraper.
« on: August 01, 2006, 10:00:45 PM »
Look, all I'm saying is that there's no reason for me to not take advantage of the favors some guys are willing to do for me.
You sure are confrontational for someone who claims to be a pacifist.
There's a tremendous reason to not take advantage of your looks. You looks will fade and then what? Will you no longer be able to accomplish anything? It also cheapens any argument you might have about being treated fairly in the workplace. Now...it's fine if you want your boobs on display all the time. That's cool. The issue is "selective boobage." When anyone selectively uses their looks (looks, not heritage) to gain favor or an advantage they may, in fact, gain that advantage, but they then malign the people who are attempting to show good work. Have they been rewarded for the work effort or their physical appearance? Is there any way to tell? In your case specifically, you, being a woman, and using your womanhood to gain favors with your male coworkers, cheapen your work. It's your coworkers fault, really, but actively engaging in the performance makes you liable as well.
PS - Accentuate the "you."
I'm not convinced. What's to say attractive physical features are any less an asset which "will fade" than intellect, sharpness, wit, or, for that matter, one's physical strength in a heavy labor field. The idea that they will someday 'be gone' and no longer benefit her doesn't convince me by itself she shouldn't be using them ('them' being physical advantages').
Not to mention, everyone uses their looks in jobs. You'll find an unusually number of tall, good-looking people in a lot of positions higher up in corporate ladders. Studies have been done to death about the differences people who are 'good looking' experience versus those who are socially 'not so good looking'.
So maybe you're going for the idea that because she CHOOSES to use it, and it's not just an unconscious twirl of her hair or a low cut blouse, that then it's wrong. I'm not convinced here, either. If appearances are always used and always judged, asking her to restrict herself from something that is not uncomfortable to her might putting her at an unfair DISadvantage. After all, it's not as though she's breaking sexual harassment or contact issues by doing it, is she? I'm not sure I see a big difference between it and the girl who unconsciously chooses to wear a slightly shorter skirt to an interview.
The last place I would see a good jump to would be some argument that it's not 'job related'. Her looks don't directly impact her job performance, so they shouldn't be counted. Well, neither does that witty joke you tell, or your choice of drinks, or table manners, or how good looking your suit is - but they're all measured, aren't they?
I find this to be an interesting discussion. And no, I'm not suggesting women have to, or even should, use their attractiveness for gain - I'm just saying I'm not sure I'm convinced it's wrong. Though I'm open to opinions.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13