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 - DDBY

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 52
51
I had to think about it ;).  Yeah I suppose I would, since I'm a negro and would expect to have a substantial negro base.
You only get the negro base if Al Sharpton supports you.  You better start paying him now. :D

52
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Gap Years
« on: June 11, 2007, 03:07:12 PM »
How long was everyone's gap year(s)? It took me 5 years to get through undergrad, so depending on how you count it, it's either one or two years gap (and I'm seriously considering taking another gap year... finding employment with an English lit degree is crucifying)
wtf are you talking about?

53
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Black Women's Thread
« on: June 11, 2007, 02:59:06 PM »
Black Women Shortchanged on Breast Cancer Care
Ivanhoe Newswire

(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Black women with advanced forms of breast cancer may not be getting the same kind of state-of-the-art care white women receive.

According to researchers from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, the survival rate for white women with the most deadly forms of the disease has risen steadily over the past couple of decades. Survival rates for black women have remained about the same.

The research was spurred by a study showing women receiving cutting-edge treatment at M.D. Anderson were surviving longer with advanced forms of the disease. The investigators speculated they'd find the same trend out in the community at large.

They were wrong. An analysis of federal data on breast cancer found the median survival for white women with advanced disease was 20 months in the years between 1988 and 1993, jumping to 22 months between 1994 and 1998 and to 27 months between 1999 and 2003.

The survival rate languished at around 16-17 months for black women throughout the study periods.

The researchers don't believe biological differences between the races are causing the discrepancy. "We do not suspect that these statistics are due to the biology of the disease because we would not expect the biology to change over time," study author Sharon Giordano, M.D., was quoted as saying. "It's more likely due to socio-economic factors."

Researchers say the answer is to focus more attention on public health policies aimed at ensuring black women have the same access to life-prolonging treatments, such as Herceptin and aromatase inhibitors, as whites.

This article was reported by Ivanhoe.com, which offers Medical Alerts by e-mail every day of the week. To subscribe, click on: http://www.ivanhoe.com/newsalert/.

SOURCE: Presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Chicago, June 1-5, 2007

54
Gonzalez 'No Confidence' Measure Won't Force Bush's Hand
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 11, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - The White House calls Monday's anticipated vote of "no confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "purely symbolic," and President Bush says it won't change anything.

But Senate Democrats are pressing ahead with the nonbinding resolution nevertheless.

On Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leading critic of Gonzales and a co-sponsor of the resolution, called on Senate Republicans to "put partisanship aside and do what's in the best interest of the Justice Department and the country."

Schumer says bipartisan support for the no-confidence measure could bring about needed change.

"Each and every Senator will have to ask what's more important - fixing the basic functioning of the Justice Department and upholding the rule of law, or voting in lockstep with a President who's out of touch with the serious problems in his Administration," he said.

Schumer added that President Bush would be "hard pressed" to ignore such a "powerful message" from the Senate.

Both Democrats and Republicans blame Gonzales for mismanaging and politicizing the Justice Department. As Schumer put it, Gonzales "fundamentally misconceives his role, inappropriately placing his loyalty to the President above fidelity to the rule of law."

Gonzales has been blasted for his role in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Democrats believe the federal prosecutors were fired in 2005 for political reasons -- because they were aggressive in pursuing corruption cases involving Republicans and not aggressive enough in going after Democrats.

According to the Los Angeles Times, most Republicans are expected to vote "no" on the resolution. Even though many Republicans are privately critical of Gonzales, they see the no-confidence measure as a political move to embarrass President Bush, the newspaper said.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), speaking Sunday on CNN, refused to comment on Gonzales' job performance, but he did criticize Schumer's resolution: "This isn't our form of government to have votes of no confidence. And I object to that process," he said.

Speaking Monday in Bulgaria, President Bush dismissed the pressure from the Senate: "I'll make the determination as to whether he's effective," Bush said of his friend Gonzales.

The Schumer-Feinstein resolution says that Gonzales "no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people."

"It is perfectly obvious that the president has the right to hire and fire people who serve at his pleasure," White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Fox News Sunday.

55
Another question is what is this writers motivation.  Why does he feel the need to convince hundreds, or thousands, of potential lawyers to stay out of private practice.  What does he get out of this? 


I would think someone who wants to be a lawyer would ask questions about motive.

56

Finally,

Quote
Not interested in reading it.  Who is he?  Why should I give that author the power to effect my decisions, and my future.

Is this poster really going to become a lawyer??

The author worked biglaw and subsequently worked as a legal academic; he has a wide-ranging legal career and he writes about his experience in biglaw, which, incidentally, happens to be the experience that many others suffer.
You missed the point of the post.  A biglaw history, and legal acedemic status are not enough to convince me that the writer knows what he is talking about.  There are alot of idiot lawyers with a similar resume. about 40,000 new ones graduate every year.  The point is that you cannot blindly allow someone elses experience determine your course of action.  I'm not going to deliberately read an atricle that is trying to convince me against a path I have already chosen, and have determined is right for me.  I make my own future not that guy, and not the statistics ::) he managed to conjure up and manipulate to fit his asessment. 8)

   

57
Law School Applications / Re: Are xoxoth and philalawyer accurate?
« on: June 10, 2007, 03:29:49 PM »
I went to b-school for undergrad.  I don't need an MBA now because of my experience.  I'm starting L.S. this August.  I want to go solo eventually so I will end up using my business experience and training, and my l.s. training together. I like both equally.

58
Non-Traditional Students / Re: crap ugrad record
« on: June 10, 2007, 03:22:55 PM »
My LSAT was 177.  My overall UGRAD GPA was 3.57, but as I mentioned, this covers 3 schools, 2 withdrawn semesters, a cuple of Fs, and 2 semesters of straight Fs at  first school.

While I am down a few notches from you, maybe my experience will be relevant. I have similar WF's, five transcripts, an embarassing WF from Grad school (History/Education, blech!). My UGPA was around 3.4, but LSAC brought it to 2.92 and LSAT was 162. Not only that, I had a downward trend in my last year of UG. However, that was 8 yrs ago and I have alot of completely irrelevant work experience in between (big help, right?). Somehow this all adds up to a Tier 1 acceptance w/ scholly and a WL at another Tier 1.
Your 177 should cure almost all the ills if you can present a compelling narrative of how you grew through the process. I wouldn't rule out any school if you have a compelling story. If you don't have a compelling story, I suggest you get one.

Good luck
I can sell you one ;D.

59
Law School Applications / Re: Are xoxoth and philalawyer accurate?
« on: June 10, 2007, 02:50:16 PM »
Only if you're pathetic.   ::)

Are you a lawyer? 
No but I know lawyers.  Happy lawyers, and sad lawyers.  I know Teachers who hate thier life and teachers who live for today.  I have a B-degree and I know MBAs who thrive on thier day to day work and MBAs who wish they studied acting instead. 

Every career has its downside.  You have to pick what you enjoy.  If you hate it, don't do it.  If you're not sure, wait a while get a job a a law firm and see what it is like. 

If you're a pathetic SOB then no matter what you do you will be miserable.  Not only will you be miserable you will want everyone to know about it like those peope on those sites.  You will spend your entire career feeling sorry for yourelf, and hoping everyone around you feels your misery. You will die unhappy never having accomplished anything worth while, alway fearful of making another mistake, or wrong turn...Pathetic. 8)

60
Law School Applications / Re: Are xoxoth and philalawyer accurate?
« on: June 10, 2007, 02:29:24 PM »
Only if you're pathetic.   ::)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 52