« on: May 01, 2005, 11:44:10 PM »
LisBeth's partial rack = 9/10. need the high'n'perkies for the extra point
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 - Stroopwafel
"Badges? Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
Sounds like we are on the same page Wills.
"...but as soon as that flag drops, I wonder what kind of enraged animals law school will breed."
I'm worried about that, but I'm more worried that I'll become one jackal among many in response. It is easy for me to stand on my moral high ground right now, but in the face of unbridled competition, fear, jealousy, pettiness, vindictiveness, groupthink, gossip, and immaturity it is hard to say how I will respond. I certainly hope to be the bigger person. But frankly I don't know if I will.
I agree with you that no one will want to come chargin out of the gates. No one will want to be the first to admit that "Yes, I'll be the bad guy. Yes, I'll be the one to screw you all over willingly so that I can ensure my own success." No one will say it, but they never have to. Actions speak louder then words. But it follows that we always see the faults in others clearly, but out own failings are always hidden from us.
I'm figuring that sh*t hits the fan the third week. After that...feeding time at the jackal house.
Power to your cause Wills. Sounds like you will become a good colleague in the future.
OK. . . .so it's like this, law school breeds a sense of competitiveness, one that pitts student against student knowing that law school grades are a zero sum grade, for you to do better, someone has to do worse.
If you are not planning on indulging on who is better, and on competition for grades and ranking then why are you planning a smug look on your face during grade posting? If you don't feel that it is a competition then why are you already planning on "kicking ass and taking names"? If you see law school as a competition against yourself then whose ass are you planning to kick?
I'm not trying to be a jerk or sound facetious. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
Based on your post it sounds as if you want a zero sum game where there only going to be one winner for a fixed and limited resource. A zero sum game means that one of two or more actors are actively looking for ways to negatively affect another's grades in order to directly benefit their own. (Hiding books, providing misleading or incorrect information, cheating, etc) It sounds like this is exactly the sort of BS that you sounds like you hate.
Please don't read this as a personal attack, or a flame. I think I can see the intent of your post and I find it defintely intriguing.
Are you asking if we, the future JD class of 2008, are intending to be hyper-competitive a-holes who will do anything to anyone in order to get ahead? We will justify any sort of behavior in order to ensure that we win? Will the ends always justify the means?
I think anywhere a law school ranks students, bases study abroad, or making Law Review on grades is going to be competitive. We wouldn't be here if we weren't a little ambitious and competitive. Afterwards you will be competing for jobs/clerkships with not just the graduates of your law school, but compelling graduates from other schools in your region and from schools with a national reputation. But the key is jobs not one job. A JD will give all of us a large amount of options with the rest of our lives. So the resources are not fixed, and not completely limited.
I plan on being cooperative as possible depending on the cooperation and degree of collegiality that I will encounter in my future 1L section. I will want to treat my law school experience as a non-zero sum game in which I, and hopefully others, will realize that what is to be gained and won is variable. Some of us want BigLaw, some want to be do-gooders, some want clerkships, etc.
Why can't all of us win?
Today, 'bourbon' has a specific legal meaning that has little to do with its geographic origins. That definition, now enshrined in federal law, has existed in its present form only since about the end of the 19th century. According to federal law, bourbon must be at least 51% corn, distilled at less than 160 proof, and aged for at least two years in new, charred oak barrels. (There are some other requirements, but those are the main ones.) Bourbon also must be made within the United States. In other words, a foreign product that meets all of the other requirements still can not be sold in the U.S. as bourbon."