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 - Rule of Reason

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 41
31
Don't go to Wisconsin; too many lawyers:

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=6781454


lol Frank Lasee (Lah-SAY) -- i guess i'm turning into an old man, that was about the most humorous thing I've seen all week.

Of course the other thing the wisconsinites complain about is the fact that ppl from chicago flock up there.  I'd imagine that stereotype holds true for Marquette and UW Law... surprised Mr. Lasse didn't bring that up.


Quote
If you stay in Wisconsin, you can diploma in rather than taking the bar (provided you take the right classes). Sweet deal.

word.

32
no offense to the OP, but the suggestion of Cornell is a pretty bad one.  If you are looking for reaches look towards, W&L, BU, BC, Iowa, UMinn, Emory.

for these schools and UIUC ("reaches"), check www.lawschoolnumbers.com and if there's a remote chance go for it --- I'm not sure if Asian-American = URM ????

Thought the list was a good start -- it'll boil down to "where do you want to practice" though... if that's in chicago, then you would probably want to go to a chicago school or a nearby big 10 school (e.g. wisconsin, iowa, indiana,)...

33
they're probably far from being mutally exclusive though.

35
News Discussion / That Obama "Rogue Nations" question
« on: July 30, 2007, 11:40:16 AM »
Said he'd sit down, w/o condition, and talk w/ leaders of Cuba, Iran, N. Korea, etc...

I've read some commentators saying this is a big "blunder" that will hurt him considerably -- "proving he's naive", etc.

Wondering if he'll stand by this?

edit:

a) wrong thread
b) prob not important

but i can't erase...



http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272615040.shtml

36
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« on: July 29, 2007, 07:05:08 PM »
Government scandals that kill people are more important than Michael Vick or the latest rehab stint.  I dont think saying that is a subjective opinion.  And if each of those stories gets the same coverage, in my eyes, something is wrong.  In reality, they do not get the same coverage.  They get alot more in depth with Vick, and I'm betting he got alot more news alerts than the Katrina trailers.  Vick is just a talking point.  so the question asked is is Vick getting too much attention, the answers yeah, but thats typical and it shouldnt be.

There's a reason they're giving Vick attention and I think it serves an important purpose: I think it is gettting us to engage in a discussion of policy (among other things).  The feds indicted him. The media's making an example of it. Regardless of what happens from here, he's a "fall-guy" of sorts. The news articles aren't breaking down the facts and matching them to the law piece-by-piece... instead, they're showing us this "example" of dog-fighting charges placed against a nat'l icon, and getting us to provide/consider the more metaphysical components of this story. I would think that in at least some way, our reaction (as expressed through the media) is going to impact the law as it is applied in the future. (similar situation with political corruption scandals, etc...) This might sound like too strong of a statement, but I think it makes sense--- if you disagree, I'd like to see why...

Now, as to the seriousness of the issue I guess I half-way concede.  There is certainly more newsworthy content with less coverage, and our need to SELL the news by emotional appeal, etc. can backfire in this respect. On the flip-side, I think the media is taking an interest in this particular sub-culture that has not previously received much attention (and they are now using Vick to sell it), and while they're stirring things up btw various interest groups, law enforcement agencies, scholars, etc... they ARE bringing about some discourse. Also, probably another theme they're onto in addition to dogfighting is "professional sports + gambling..."



I don't know about any policy changes coming about from this.  thats what I was talking about earlier when I said the media drops the ball when it comes to educating.  They are playing so much on those dog fighting images and peoples emotions, that real issues, get lost in the mix.  I dont think people know about any policy concerns as regards the vick case because thats not what the media explores.  therefore, i dont think there will be much of a reaction for law makers to go by. certainly there will be no mandate for change if coverage continues as it has. 

it is DISPROPORTIONATE coverage --- I think you could prove this by doing a Lexis search for all news articles / broadcasts, and issue-coding the content.  I'm sure you'd find an overwhelming majority of coverage focusing on "what happens to the dogs" etc... but they do have the capacity to take other angles in coverage (and they have - and must -in order to keep a news beat going. It's inevitable).

I was somewhat pleased to see a soc. professor from my alma-mater quoted in the paper today, (exploring racial/ demographic-based implications, etc, also saying that you're asking an awful lot for an icon like Vick just to drop his previous connections...) though I don't know if even that's all that provocative. But I for one wouldn't have even thought that those types of implications could be addressed when I first heard the story. I had to scan through the coverage for a while just to get to that point.

As far as the policy thing goes, I don't know, I read some Delaney stuff earlier today and got carried away.  ??? I guess I'm posing the question: Does the media impact policy re: the respective legal issues in any way by covering these types of stories?

37
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« on: July 29, 2007, 02:23:51 PM »
Government scandals that kill people are more important than Michael Vick or the latest rehab stint.  I dont think saying that is a subjective opinion.  And if each of those stories gets the same coverage, in my eyes, something is wrong.  In reality, they do not get the same coverage.  They get alot more in depth with Vick, and I'm betting he got alot more news alerts than the Katrina trailers.  Vick is just a talking point.  so the question asked is is Vick getting too much attention, the answers yeah, but thats typical and it shouldnt be.

There's a reason they're giving Vick attention and I think it serves an important purpose: I think it is gettting us to engage in a discussion of policy (among other things).  The feds indicted him. The media's making an example of it. Regardless of what happens from here, he's a "fall-guy" of sorts. The news articles aren't breaking down the facts and matching them to the law piece-by-piece... instead, they're showing us this "example" of dog-fighting charges placed against a nat'l icon, and getting us to provide/consider the more metaphysical components of this story. I would think that in at least some way, our reaction (as expressed through the media) is going to impact the law as it is applied in the future. (similar situation with political corruption scandals, etc...) This might sound like too strong of a statement, but I think it makes sense--- if you disagree, I'd like to see why...

Now, as to the seriousness of the issue I guess I half-way concede.  There is certainly more newsworthy content with less coverage, and our need to SELL the news by emotional appeal, etc. can backfire in this respect. On the flip-side, I think the media is taking an interest in this particular sub-culture that has not previously received much attention (and they are now using Vick to sell it), and while they're stirring things up btw various interest groups, law enforcement agencies, scholars, etc... they ARE bringing about some discourse. Also, probably another theme they're onto in addition to dogfighting is "professional sports + gambling..."


38
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Loyola Chicago 2010
« on: July 28, 2007, 04:14:00 PM »
Its just 4-4-4-2 for first semester.

Here, schedule's in front of me:

Next semester it's ConLaw (4), Contracts (4), CrimLaw (3), LW (2), plus an elective. (don't know if that's required, er?)

39
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Loyola Chicago 2010
« on: July 28, 2007, 04:09:46 PM »

I'm in your section iris -- where did you find the section #?


Mad Scientist, Awesome!  The section number is listed at the top of your schedule and should appear as Section III.

[after "inspecting" the document multiple times for the section number...]

Ahhhhh!

40
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Loyola Chicago 2010
« on: July 28, 2007, 04:03:38 PM »
Any 2Ls or 3Ls have any advice/info on the professors for Section 3?? Kaufman (CivPro), McCormack (Property), and Locke (Torts) are the professors. 

I'm asking around about them.  I have plenty of friends who had them.  IIRC, Locke is not all that well liked, McCormack spends 6 weeks on the first 10 pages of the property book and has an odd style, and Kaufman is OK.  I will get more details though.

Why is no one listing their CrimLaw professors?

Well, that's b/c we don't have CrimLaw til 2nd semester ;D
LW is the other class and its 2 hrs... adding up to 14.

I'm in your section iris -- where did you find the section #?

I'm holding off on the study aids until I figure out which casebooks I have, or maybe I'll just wait until after class starts to spazz out on that...

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 41