Law School 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 - Martin Prince, Jr.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 17
21
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Liberty, Regent or Ave Maria
« on: May 29, 2008, 02:32:17 PM »
Quote
How do you only have 2 years of military experience?

It's simple. Only sign up for a 2 year contract and don't re-enlist. You don't get much bonus money that way, but the GI-Bill is the same.

When I was in there was a 36-month service obligation to collect on the GI Bill. Also, none of the services offered 2-year enlistments either (Army did 3 year contracts). Did you get out recently? Sorry for the questions, I am curious though.

22
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Liberty, Regent or Ave Maria
« on: May 29, 2008, 12:19:40 PM »
How do you only have 2 years of military experience?

23
For those truly interested in this subject, I recommend contacting your state legislators about the National Popular Vote. More info can be found here:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/national_popular_vote/index.html

The basic gist is that states decide how they allocate the "electors" to the electoral college. What NPV does is assign those electors to the winner of the *national* popular vote instead of the state's popular vote. So far Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii have signed on. Once enough states sign on (270 electoral votes or more), the legislation goes into effect. Yay democracy.

24
I've always believed the only fix would be to have a bipartisan executive branch, with the Presidency going to the candidate with the most electoral votes and the VP coming from the guy who 'lost'.
It would force both sides to work together and provide a happy little check and balance.
But we all know such an idea would fail on its face.  After all, someone has to end up #2, and no one likes to lose.
Could you imagine an Obama/McCain or McCain/Obama white house?


That's because such an idea DID fall on its face, way back in the elections of 1796 and 1800. That's the reason for the existence of the 12th Amendment.

In a perfect world this sounds great, but the second a chief executive dies in office the flaws become obvious.

25
Everybody on this board seems to rave about soft factors like work experience.  I would put all of my effort into getting a high LSAT score.  I finished my B.A. 8 years ago, have great soft factors inculding a 4.0 M.A. and several years academic work experience.

Everywhere I was accepted, I think I would have been accepted with no soft factors.  The only things that mattered were my undegrad GPA and my LSAT score.  In fact, no where that I applied with median LSAT and GPA scores accepted me.  I was well over in one or both categories in all the schools that accepted me.  I was waitlisted at two schools where I was median though.

Does anyone on this board have a story about soft factors helping him? 

Maybe you will have better luck with the process, but I think a great LSAT score is your best chance.

Gonna have to agree with this guy. Like the OP I have military experience, and while I think it played a role in financial aid offers, as a soft factor it seemed to play little to no role in admissions decisions, as they seemed very numbers-oriented. Like another poster said, take an LSAT prep course if your own self-study isn't paying dividends. A 4-6 point improvement in your score opens up another tier of schools, as well as increasing aid offers from former-target-turned safety schools, making it worth every penny.

26

I'm not sure how changing your position based on political expediency isn't "flip-flopping" by definition. I also disagree with your (empirical?) claim that McCain isn't a flip-flopper: see, e.g., http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15227.html (documenting at least 25 instances)

I do not pretend to know what motivates people to change positions.  That is for that person to determine.  I do not consider someone changing their mind as flip flopping.  I believe that McCain may have been on the fence about it and modified his position as quickly as possibly to insure he was the nomination.  I wish he wasn't because he is the only candidate that any democrat would struggle with in this election cycle.

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, and was pretty disappointed by the ratfuck played on him in South Carolina. That being said, the McCain of 2000 simply bears no resemblance to the McCain of 2008. On a lot of issues, on which Iraq stands head and shoulders above all, he is simply not the same person he was eight years ago.

27
One of the leaders of the violent Weather Underground group that is responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people who has NEVER disassociated herself from their criminal activities is now a teacher at Northwestern University School of Law.  Her name is Bernardine Dohrn.  The fact that she is allowed to teach ANYWHERE is a travesty of our justice system.

There were no innocent victims of the Weatherman organization. All of their bombings were announced in advance. The only deaths that resulted from their bombings were 3 of their own during the bomb-making process.

This just exposes part of the difficulty of arguing with right-wingers (especially the 27 percent that are still in the tank for Bush). If reality or historical fact does not mesh with their daily talking points they ignore it. A recent great example of this ahistorical "thinking" was the recent scuffle over Obama's "appeasement" and how he's supposedly another Chamberlain. Enjoy this takedown of another winger by Chris Matthews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28
Ah yes, another apologist who thinks there are no victims...[snip]

Unresponsive.

You write, and I quote: "[they] were responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people," with the clear implication of your language that they killed people. I don't endorse their methods (which is obvious from my response, your insinuations to the contrary not withstanding), but the historical record is quite clear: the only thing they damaged was property. Trying to hide your obfuscation behind several paragraphs worth of a wikipedia article won't change that.

Assumptive (something you really should deal with if you intend to argue in court).  I said "terrible attacks on innocent people", with no clear implication that they killed people.  TERRORISM isn't about body count, it's about creating fear. 
I didn't obfuscate anything.
Property damage doesn't quite sum up what they did.
One act was to plant a bomb in the ladies room in the air force wing of the freaking pentagon.
Something that says 'no matter hw secure you are, we can still get to you.'
Clever attempt at discrediting my statement though.

So we're clear: a terrible attack on an innocent person (or people) doesn't imply that the person (or people) was the subject of violence or attempted violence? Interesting parsing. The judge will be impressed.

28
One of the leaders of the violent Weather Underground group that is responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people who has NEVER disassociated herself from their criminal activities is now a teacher at Northwestern University School of Law.  Her name is Bernardine Dohrn.  The fact that she is allowed to teach ANYWHERE is a travesty of our justice system.

There were no innocent victims of the Weatherman organization. All of their bombings were announced in advance. The only deaths that resulted from their bombings were 3 of their own during the bomb-making process.

This just exposes part of the difficulty of arguing with right-wingers (especially the 27 percent that are still in the tank for Bush). If reality or historical fact does not mesh with their daily talking points they ignore it. A recent great example of this ahistorical "thinking" was the recent scuffle over Obama's "appeasement" and how he's supposedly another Chamberlain. Enjoy this takedown of another winger by Chris Matthews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28
Ah yes, another apologist who thinks there are no victims...[snip]

Unresponsive.

You write, and I quote: "[they] were responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people," with the clear implication of your language that they killed people. I don't endorse their methods (which is obvious from my response, your insinuations to the contrary not withstanding), but the historical record is quite clear: the only thing they damaged was property. Trying to hide your obfuscation behind several paragraphs worth of a wikipedia article won't change that.

29
One of the leaders of the violent Weather Underground group that is responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people who has NEVER disassociated herself from their criminal activities is now a teacher at Northwestern University School of Law.  Her name is Bernardine Dohrn.  The fact that she is allowed to teach ANYWHERE is a travesty of our justice system.

There were no innocent victims of the Weatherman organization. All of their bombings were announced in advance. The only deaths that resulted from their bombings were 3 of their own during the bomb-making process.

This just exposes part of the difficulty of arguing with right-wingers (especially the 27 percent that are still in the tank for Bush). If reality or historical fact does not mesh with their daily talking points they ignore it. A recent great example of this ahistorical "thinking" was the recent scuffle over Obama's "appeasement" and how he's supposedly another Chamberlain. Enjoy this takedown of another winger by Chris Matthews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28

30
Law School Admissions / Re: How do you do it?!
« on: May 25, 2008, 01:09:28 PM »
is that really it?  should i bag the fluff (extracurriculars) and just buckle down and work harder to try and up my LSAT?  I didn't think it was so cut and dry. 

It is that cut and dry. Many will try to persuade you that it is not with anecdotal arguments, but don't be fooled. The examples they cite are the exceptions. It's almost all about the numbers. Don't bag the extracurriculars, but if you have to choose between volunteering three nights a week somewhere and improving your LSAT by 5 pts, choose the LSAT. You can volunteer all you want later and by then you'll have a spiffy law degree that you'll be able to use to help people out.

Percentage wise, I'd say adcomms treat the numbers as constituting about 80-90% of the strength of any given application. What say ye, audience?

I concur.

Me too.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 17