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 - calvin
« on: July 21, 2004, 01:41:27 AM »
dang, that's too bad. the campus looks awfully beautiful from the website. i'm curious, though, if anyone might mind letting me know - how's the u of minn's rep within the midwest, even if it's not great throughout the rest of the us of a? i had a friend who went to a lower ranked school (wisconsin), but was able to get a job out here in california, so i'm hoping for a slightly higher ranked school it's still got some pull around the region?
« on: July 21, 2004, 01:31:49 AM »
someone cited this before, which i thought was really helpful:
Picking a law school. Yes, there are a number of law schools that are repeatedly mentioned as being good places to study patent law. My advice is to pay no attention to that. Go to the highest reputation school you can get admitted to, regardless of whether or not it is known for patent law. There are several reasons I say this. http://www.patents.com/opportun.htm#law-school
First, the law school you attend will make an enormous difference as you look for that first job out of law school (and as you look for those summer jobs during law school). Students at the half-dozen or so law schools with the highest reputations have no trouble getting summer jobs, and get to pick and choose among job offers when graduation approaches. People at lots of other schools don't get to be choosy, or don't get jobs at all. There are law schools where, a year after graduation, half the graduates still have not found work.
Second, most potential employers give little or no weight to a school's supposed reputation for intellectual property. I am a partner of a patent law firm, and over the years I have screened thousands of resumes. The sorting criteria are fairly simple. People with no technical background are flushed. People with weak technical background are flushed. From what's left, one hopes to winnow out some of the bright ones. If the person is from one of the highest-reputation law schools, for example, it is likely they are bright. If the person is from law review elsewhere, it is likely they are bright. Other things in resumes may also come into play.
Third, even if you are absolutely sure, right now, that you plan to do patent law for a living after graduating, you might turn out to be completely wrong about what you'll want to do when you graduate from law school. By the time you graduate, you might decide you really like some other area of law, in which case it would have been a mistake to turn down some high-reputation law school in favor of a law school that is said to be good for patent law.
It is of less than no interest to me if the person went to one of the law schools that is said to be particularly good for patent law. I don't even notice that on resumes.
The fact is, even at one of the law schools that is said to be particularly good for patent law, you are (one hopes) learning mostly non-IP things -- contracts, civil procedure, torts, property ... and for those things you want to learn the most you can. You are not going to learn, say, contracts better because you are at a school with what is said to be a good patent course.
The fact also is, very little of what is taught in IP courses helps one to become a practitioner in the field. An enormous portion of what you need to know to be a good patent lawyer is learnable only on the job, from an experienced practitioner. To learn that, it matters little which law school you attended, nor does it matter whether or not you took a patent law course, or a copyright law course.
So the basic advice is, go to a law school with an excellent overall reputation ... Harvard, or Yale, or Chicago, or NYU, or Boalt, or Stanford, or Columbia ... and on down through the first and second and third tiers of law schools.
So it doesn't matter, if my view is correct, for your resume to list patent courses, or to list that you are attending a school known for patents.
« on: July 21, 2004, 12:58:35 AM »
i don't know if you have allergies or anything like that, but i do and downtown la seems to make them even worse at times. west la is definitely a lot better for people with allergies, i think - the nice ocean breeze, etc. i know, i know, it's probably silly to consider allergies in light of everything else about each school, but i figured it couldn't hurt to mention it.
« on: May 28, 2004, 12:12:11 AM »
1800 posts?! dang i take it back then. just kidding. but why isn't there a poll like with the jew-lo vs. ruskiegirl thread? i guess this must be the "nomination" stage before making it to the polls.
« on: May 28, 2004, 12:01:03 AM »
i nominate thechoson purely 'cos he's humble enough to not nominate himself.
« on: May 27, 2004, 12:37:32 AM »
thanks for the kind words too ttiwed!
« on: May 27, 2004, 12:05:11 AM »
really? someone told me they saw him mopping up the floors in a mexican cantina.Actually I heard he escaped deportation by joining the army
i heard he joined the mexican army and works in their cantina.
« on: May 26, 2004, 01:10:48 AM »
his mispronunciation of the prison's name demonstrates his ineptitude in current affairs. it also shows he didn't prepare his speech well enough. likewise, a student who didn't do the readings and didn't prepare for his presentation is a bad student.
ttiwed, well, again, i'm not taking a partisan stance on any of this, although you seem to be. that's totally understandable, of course, and i'm in no way faulting you for it. politics is such a touchy issue. by the way, it's so hard to intone other people's meanings via electronic text, so please forgive me if what i just said came off offensive or something (and likewise for me if i "read" you wrong or whatever); i honestly don't mean it to be. that said, i think you brought up a few good points, too, but i wasn't arguing whether or not bush is doing a good job as president. i was just pointing out that it's sort of sketchy to imply that mispronounced words and a lack of intelligence make for a bad president. maybe they do, maybe they do not. but there has to be more clarification as to what is meant precisely in order for someone to objectively judge that. that's all i was saying.
biased quote. holmes was a conservative justice appointed by a republican president. fdr was a democrat. i'm sure rehnquist and scalia wouldn't have the nicest things to say about bill clinton either. yet clinton was a self made man who went to georgetown and yale law school (obviously a bright guy).
the quote from holmes actually was saying that fdr was a great personality. but it doesn't really matter anyway what holmes said. other people, both his enemies as well as those close to fdr, said more or less the same thing: intelligence aside, fdr had a charm and charisma that in great part helped to bring our nation through one of her darkest periods (the great depression, ww2). he was a tremendous president because of this, and not necessarily because of his intelligence or lack of intelligence. so that at least in one president's case, some things count for more than intelligence alone. (although i suppose one could make the argument that an intelligent president would better know how to be charismatic. jfk would be an ideal in this case, i think. then again, not sure how you'd explain other charismatic but not actually intelligent presidents like reagan, or those who were intelligent but were not very charismatic such as carter. although these days carter seems to be doing quite well on both fronts. too bad he didn't do better during his actual presidency.)
i don't think that's necessarily true about republicans tending to say not-so-nice things about democrats or vice versa. many members of each party, even today, respect one another even if they do not agree with their politics. and are willing to say so. more than that though, and if you think about it, there also has to be more bipartisanship than we the public are perhaps aware of, since otherwise nothing would be accomplished in government. and, again, as for holmes' quote above re: fdr, it might not have been the most flattering words he could've mustered, but it actually was at bottom a commendation of fdr for his outstanding, charismatic personality.
i don't care if bush is mr. casanova or an even smoother player than friggin' snoop D O double G. i care about the president's (along with all other elected official's) ability to get this country out of the downward spiral that its been going on for the past few years. the bush admin isn't doing that.
well this would assume that there is a downward spiral in this nation. which again may or may not be the case. i'm not straight up disagreeing or agreeing with you, but just pointing out what i pointed out before: these sorts of remarks are just remarks, but nothing more. without further support, they're unhelpful statements, unfortunately, just like the previous statements made by others that bush's lack of intelligence automatically equate to being a bad president. again, maybe it does mean something, maybe it doesn't. whatever the case we need more clarification of terminology and so forth in order to better understand what you're getting at exactly.
however, that was a good point about elected officials bearing some share of the responsibility for the direction our nation is headed. so here's perhaps something else to consider, along with attempting to somehow measure "intelligence." a president (fortunately) doesn't lead alone, by himself. he has to pick a solid group of advisors, secretaries, etc. in order to help him make hopefully sound decisions for the nation. so i would think that if we were faulting a president for a lack of intelligence, then we would necessarily have to include in that his selection of his cabinet. an obtuse president would more likely than not have a poor cabinet while an intelligent one would have "chosen wisely." i don't know what most people's thoughts are on the current bush cabinet (probably not good, especially now with rumsfeld and the fallout from abu ghraib), but that'd certainly have to factor in somewhere when trying to judge bush's intelligence or lack thereof. just another thought anyhow.
« on: May 26, 2004, 12:59:01 AM »
buster, that's a good point. i think you're probably right, too. although obviously most conservatives would say that he has demonstrated those qualifications you mention while most liberals would disagree. in other words we then have to ask, what demonstrates or doesn't demonstrate those qualifications? re: iraq, those in bush's camp would say he has done a bang-up job on the war on terror or whatever while those not would vehemently disagree and say that he's waging a needless war in iraq, sacrificing young men and women for... for what? missing wmds? anyhow, like i said, i have my doubts about this president, too, but whatever the case, my point was not to commend nor to disapprove of his conduct per se
; it was simply to point out that when trying to fairly discern good leadership from bad leadership we need to go further than the vague criticisms of "mispronounced words" or "a lack of intelligence" (however that's
quantified), which you've of course done above (cool
). that is, i was basically just trying to clarify, define, frame in the proper context, or however you want to put it, the argument rather than to let it flit around with what seemed to me to be more or less ad hominem
attacks and arguments without any real substance. thankfully though it looks like we've turned this around.
(by the way, it should be pretty clear, but i'm not partisan to the republican party; i would've replied this way too had someone said something similar about clinton or gore or whomever else. heck, even nader. although i guess most people wouldn't attack clinton or gore re: their intelligence. maybe their sexual misconduct or lack of charisma, or something else, but certainly not their intelligence.)
« on: May 25, 2004, 11:01:06 PM »
i have my doubts about bush, too, but i don't think the mispronunciation of words is necessarily indicative of stupidity or somehow demonstrates a deficiency in leadership. of course i have other misgivings about his leadership, but i don't think his texas accent or the frequent mispronunciation of words or even his stupidity (if he really is) means he can't be a competent president. after all one of the great legal minds of the century, justice oliver wendell holmes, said of one of our great presidents, fdr, that he had "a second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament."
the guy has other gifts or talents that might make for a capable leader. for one he reputedly knows how to charm people close to him (if not the public). yeah, that could've come from his frat boy days or growing up in an affluent family or whatever, but it ain't necessarily a bad thing to know how to rub elbows with the rich and famous, those in power, and to (hopefully) win [political] enemies over, even if he is academically "dumb." of course it'd be nice to have a scholarly president like woodrow wilson, but on the other hand some of our finest presidents - george washington and abe lincoln and fdr - weren't necessarily the brightest ones either (i believe jq adams, jefferson, and wilson are probably tops there). well then again i think abe was pretty smart too. anyhow i'm not agreeing with bush, but rather just saying that book smarts don't necessarily always make a successful president is all.