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 - nike6075
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 83
« on: July 01, 2008, 01:59:52 PM »
It didn't really need to be said. "I disagree with your opinion, therefore I will dis on your score/school/prospects" rarely needs to be said.
Right, plus that detour of the thread was done and buried days ago. If Nike wants to start a new thread on Greek life and law school prospects, he might get quite a roaring discussion going. Godspeed.
I don't really play on LSD when I'm away from my desk; I responded at my first opportunity.
The person was trying to imply that these people consistently make bad decisions and are always having to deal with the effects of lawbreaking, over-drinking, etc. If that's the case, then how come so many of them are doing so much better than he is?EDIT:
They're not necessarily bad people, they're just dumb and do dumb *&^%. Now, of course, this isn't ALL Greeks, just the average Greek, in my experience. They party harder, get the cops called more, get in more trouble, drink more, tend to blow off school more, and tend to do more general dumb *&^% than the average person.
Oh, I get it - he's just making sure to point out that he's below average. Fair, and point taken.
« on: June 27, 2008, 12:13:16 PM »
3.84 unknown/good school, 168. Marylander. virtually no notable soft factors. History major, women's studies minor.
I am interested in international law, but not State Department/us government work specifically.. I don't want to enforce foreign policy because I often disagree with it.
I am also interested in women/families/Spanish, etc. I want to go to law school to do something that falls into these areas.. but I also am interested in my own financial security.
Please look over this list and critique- good fits or bad, are any just too bad or too good to bother applying to?
Any additional suggestions for 'good fit' schools for me?
Additional notes: I can't handle a pervasively conservative atmosphere, I want to go to a school that at least has an understanding that some of its students wont go to firms, and I hate being really cold.
University of Maryland
American- 5th for international law- law and international studies combo degree, sounds really good for government
Georgetown- 3rd for international law, very demanding, 'barhopping', competitive, but with public interest loan forgiveness program
University of Oregon- sounds really nice, friendly, my kind of 'lifestyle'
Stanford- snowballs chance in hell of acceptance, but nice..
U Berkeley- pretty much the same as Stanford
UCLA-good, cant get past stigma of LA driving exhaust, kind of dread contributing to the water-environmental disaster of LA
University of Mich-cold?
CUNY Queens- a public interest law school, but really bad scores
Northeastern-coop jobs the whole time
You sound pretty obnoxious - I'd look into Cornell. I think the likemindedness will help you get over the cold.
« on: June 27, 2008, 11:22:10 AM »
What battle? I only see one editorial here.
« on: June 17, 2008, 02:22:06 PM »
As a side note, if you're interviewing in Charleston, you need to be able to tell them the last time you were in Charleston and some convincing connections/reasons why you want to live there.
Yes but who would want to live in Charleston? Except coma lovers.
Charleston is a f-ing amazing place to live. That is all.
« on: June 11, 2008, 04:05:21 PM »
This isn't funny. Stop sucking, especially you, TimMitchell.
« on: June 11, 2008, 03:22:24 PM »
Yup, me too. $35 or so from Ugrad, and then law school.
Depending on what you do over the summers, you probably won't qualify for this club. (That is, you'll be over 200K in debt).
« on: June 10, 2008, 01:18:37 PM »
if you'd like to cite to places on this board where people (and their arguments) are "attacked" for misplaced or errant punctuation - or a misspelled word - please do so, and I'll consider them.
I quit reading after you used 'and' following a semicolon. HTFH
A little slow on the uptake huh?
(Just in case you still don't quite get it, I made the post you quoted in response to what t... said.)
« on: June 09, 2008, 12:47:30 PM »
Those points about "how to behave" here at LSD are pretty valid, but the thing is, they basically apply to almost any internet board. Don't try to talk about hot-button topics (gun control, affirmative action, abortion, etc.) unless you're willing to invite flames and trolls (regardless of whether you take the traditional left-wing or right-wing position on either). Only be sarcastic if you're REALLY clear about the fact that you're using irony (people tend to miss it more on the internet than in regular reading; or perhaps internet writers are weaker at indicating it; either way, it tends to go wrong more often). Address issues rather than people, unless you're really clear on the idea of why the PERSON is indeed a appropriate attack. Recognize that some people are childish and need to slam on you just to gratify their own egos, rather than being responsible to discussing the topic at hand rationally. And so on.
What's different at LSD, is that there's one other point that many internet boards don't need to have mentioned. Here at LSD, you're going to catch a rather large number of people who do what I call "uncharitable reading." They're looking to "catch you out", even if they happen to agree with you on a topic, or even if their reading of your statement is really not supported by your overall intent, though in a small nit-picky way they can be said to have accurately required that you said something you didn't mean to say. They catch accidental verbal usages, or small statistic inaccuracies, and overblow them to use them against you.
That's because they're looking to FIND something to use AGAINST you. They think they're thinking like lawyers. (They might be. I doubt it, but then I haven't started law school yet, so I'm not going to get into that discussion.) What they ARE doing, is thinking like jerk-heads. "Nyah nyah," they seem to want to say, "You made a boo-boo and that means YOUR ENTIRE WORLD IS NOT VALID."
This type of stupidity is more common on the internet than in the real world, basically because you can't get away with it in the real world. There, people can interrupt and go, "Oh, I see where you're getting me wrong. I didn't mean it that way. Let me rephrase ..." and the rephrasing takes precedence over the catching-out. But it's even more common on the LSD part of the internet than on much of the other parts of the 'net.
So, what happens here is, people don't act WITH CHARITY. They should. They don't tend to. Why are uncharitable readings more tempting at LSD? Proably a combination of the characteristics of the individuals involved in the board -- smart, under-educated, self-assured, without a lot of real-world experience, and with a great deal of ego-investment in the idea of "winning" an argument regardless of whether they "make sense" or "have common sense" on the issue at hand -- and the issues involved in the board -- "getting ahead" in a rather competitive environment.
This type of attitude might pervade your eventual workplace, too. There are decent law firms where people just want to work together to win the case; and a-ho law firms where every young associate back-stabs every other one with this type of childish passive-aggressive language as happens at LSD. I don't really know that it's necessary to learn to 'beat them' at their passive-aggression and uncharitable reading, though it MIGHT be a skill useful in the context of a more competitive, unsupportive law firm. Then again, it might not, and again, I haven't had a legal career so I don't really know. It's certainly likely that competitiveness, as a whole, is useful in many competitive environments, but the particular b!tchy type of childlike competitiveness of language that happens here might not be useful.
So, in the long run, it IS true that "free speech is free speech" but that type of defense simply avoids the issue. A-ho behavior by means of free speech is still a-ho behavior and therefore is still socially inappropriate, and also quite useless to any ongoing discussion, although it is technically allowed by the restrictive reading of the rules of social intercourse.
I am reminded of the umpire who defends a bad strike call by saying, "Nobody said life would be fair." The fact, that he knows his call can be characterized as unfair, ought to suggest to him that he should attempt to make his call more fair. Instead it simply suggests to him that he can opt out of any consideration of fairness, at least in the context of defending his actions. This is not a sensible understanding of the situation for him to come to ...
I quit reading after you used 'and' following a semicolon. HTFH
« on: June 03, 2008, 03:39:12 PM »
I really don't see anything in your explanation that can't coexist with anything in my explanation, nike.
Only pussies complain about Penn because of YP. The general reason is that it is ranked much higher than it should be, which has far more to do with accounting than the Why Penn essay (or yield).
« on: June 03, 2008, 03:36:57 PM »
Anonymous sources often remain anonymous for a reason.
And, if you read the rest of the website (the analysis and conclusions of the blogger), you'll find evidence that substantiates the idea that Penn uses creative accounting/spending methods to game the rankings far above and beyond the efforts of peer schools.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 83