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 - Alecto
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 9 10 11 ... 19
« on: May 27, 2008, 11:20:35 AM »
just b/c you apply or are accepted for Fall 09 doesn't mean you have to commit. I would say to see how you do in the application process and take it from there. if you get enough $$ or in-state tuition that you won't have to take on significant loans, go for it! I would recommend that your husband apply to different jobs near your schools, that way you make sure he can find a job where you decide to attend.
« on: May 27, 2008, 11:09:52 AM »
don't do a grad program to bring up your GPA -- most law schools will barely glance at your GGPA. the main determinant in your likelihood of admission is your UGPA+LSAT combo. you're just going to get more debt through the grad program (speaking from experience, even if you get tuition remission and a stipend). my advice would be to bust your butt studying for the LSAT and take it October and apply for 2009. If you need to, you can always take it again in December. If you do well on the LSAT (160+), then your 3.0 UGPA shouldn't hold you back too much. If you're going into environmental law, then there's no point in aiming for a super-expensive t25 anyway. Find a good all-around law school with a good environmental focus, and go to one that will either give you a substantial scholarship or in-state tuition.
« on: May 27, 2008, 10:54:41 AM »
my dearest Alton, this thread was hijacked by some overly-serious champion of religions, and I think we are all feeling a little on the defensive as we try to right what was supposed to be a light-hearted discussion about an article.
Why are people writing so much? Seriously, I never read more than four or five sentences of a post. Get real dudes.
hear hear! keep it concise, dudes.
« on: May 27, 2008, 01:07:32 AM »
Ok, I'll bite.
Describing people who are religious as being devoid of logic isn't a bigoted statement. I'm sure it's well thought out and based on personal interaction, not bullcrap and nonsense...
My 'typical right-wing argument' isn't based on nonsensical ravings or bigotry, and I do not have an 'anti-intellectual' bias. Quite the contrary. I believe one can be both intellectual and religious.
Unlike you, apparently, I know quite a few devout catholics, jews, and muslims that hold advanced degrees and have proven themselves to me to be unimpeachably smart. Why do you automatically assume that religious people are anti-intellectual?
Bigotry. If that's how you have been raised, I wouldn't brag too much. Your parents would likely be at least a little dissapointed in your statement, even though it was, as you say, made in jest.
. . . .
Now, you'll either come back with another smart alec answer, flame me, or make more excuses for why your statement is okay. That's fine. I've said my peace and am good with it. Not everyone cares about being civil, being kind, or just not being rude. OR, you'll just take a second and try replacing the words as I've asked and realize that your statement may have been an attempt at light joking around, but was somewhat unreasonable and offensive.
Either way, I'm good.
Best of luck!
Get off your soap-box! If you are both intellectual and religious, then this discussion probably doesn't apply to you. The problem is that I think most of us have
experienced people who use adherence to certain religious views as an excuse to not form their own opinions on a variety of topics. Also, there has been a resurgence in very public displays of blind fundamentalism recently, and I think this lends a bad reputation to many genuinely devout individuals.
Your assertions about art teachers lecturing on Bush and public school teachers denouncing god are disturbing, to say the least. That sounds like a case of you drawing sweeping generalizations from one or two isolated incidents. Any good teacher will differentiate between the science and religion, without trying to indoctrinate students.
As for you railing against all of the accommodations made for Muslims, think that they are trying to practice a religion individually (which this country supports) as opposed to foisting it on all citizens over the course of a day, as happens when the word "god" is in the pledge (that many students still are required to recite on a daily basis in school) and on our nation's currency (which most of us handle each day).
The reality is that religion is based on faith, which is belief in something without proof. That is sort of the antithesis of law (and science, for that matter). This doesn't mean that a very religious person cannot be successful in science or law, but rather that the person needs to be very aware to adjust his/her paradigm depending on whether he/she is in a private or professional sphere. Darwin and E.O. Wilson were both very religious individuals in addition to being renowned scientists, but they were able to realize that science addresses some issues, and religion addresses others. It's not an either/or situation.
Every group is going to have its extremists. You holding up some inflammatory examples of perceived religious persecution doesn't make you any more in the right (although they could be very valid examples). Have you stopped to consider that these examples hail from a few instances at a few schools, and probably do not reflect higher education at large? You're no better than the people on this thread you're trying to discredit.
« on: May 26, 2008, 11:56:06 PM »
« on: May 21, 2008, 05:50:27 PM »
dekocards, do you have a separate ING checking account or an ING bankcard somehow? how does that work?
« on: May 19, 2008, 10:17:26 PM »
So sorry to hear about your baby! That must have been very difficult. My husband and I are hoping to start trying late this summer, which would mean the baby would be born around late May or so. Of course, I know that planning doesn't always work in this area! I think 1L summer would be a good time to have a baby, so that you could work during 2L summer.
« on: May 19, 2008, 06:05:13 PM »
I finally heard from IU - B. Rejected. I'm not really upset about it, other than a little bruised ego. I would have been 5/5 if they accepted me.
« on: May 19, 2008, 06:04:11 PM »
However, having a working spouse really eases the financial burden...
This is what I'm hoping.
« on: May 19, 2008, 02:13:11 PM »
I think it entirely depends. My grad degree (once I finally finish it - aagh) is going to be in science, which I think sets me apart a little. Also, my past work experience was for a law firm in the city in which I want to study law, and the legal community there is pretty tight. Of course, it's possible they laughed themselves silly over my application and it could just be a good old-fashioned case of nepotism (my stepmom attended their school, but both she and my dad are really active in their bar-review program).
Anyway, I had a UGPA of 3.3 from a pretty high-ranked school, but my highest LSAT was a 162, and I didn't really have much in the way of extra-curriculars except working 15-25 hours a week. Here's how my cycle played out (I just got the rejection today):
T2: accepted 4/4 (three of those offered me $$)
my top choice was one of the T2 schools, so I am very happy with the way things turned out.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 9 10 11 ... 19