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 - amarain

Pages: 1 ... 391 392 393 394 395 [396]
3951
General Off-Topic Board / Miss Manners on Political Conversations
« on: October 04, 2004, 09:44:20 AM »
We could all benefit from the wisdom of Miss Manners  :)


A Collision Discourse
By Judith Martin

It seems un-American to have etiquette restrictions on discussing politics informally, among friends, colleagues and anyone else who will stand still long enough. How else are the citizens supposed to thrash out the plethora of complex issues of our time and arrive at judicious and reasoned decisions?

Well, we could study one another's T-shirts and bumper stickers. We could glean understanding from those who shout down candidates before anyone hears what they have to say, and those who start cheering them before anyone hears what they have to say. Or we can just snap out opinions at one another, and remark upon the stupidity of anyone who doesn't agree.

Since this is what we do anyway, it strikes Miss Manners that etiquette hardly needs to caution that political conversation can be volatile. Conversation? What conversation?

When was the last time you heard political talk that included such phrases as "You do have a point there" or "I hadn't thought of that" or "Tell me more about how that would work"?

Miss Manners can sense the derision felt for these wimpy statements. Why would you say such things unless you didn't know what you were talking about? Anyway, you don't win by making the other person look smart. And you certainly don't win by showing yourself to be so unsure of your beliefs that you can be talked out of them.

She doesn't doubt that this assessment is true for people who are running for office. What puzzles her is why the electorate is more interested in demonstrating that it already knows everything than in delving for information and exchanging ideas.

Perhaps it is because we are so used to observing and participating in conflicts in which sides are chosen ahead of time, anything short of total endorsement constitutes disloyalty, and the object is to win. In law, sports, debates, and business and international negotiations, partisanship is a given.

Even then, the particular rules that apply mandate that each side be allotted a fair chance, limit the tactics that can be used, and require a show of respect for the opposition and for the presiding authority. No one believes that this represents true open-mindedness, but the forms provide order and dignity that prevent the proceedings from deteriorating into melees.

Candidates, their staffs, and voters who have made up their minds should take the same approach. One reason for etiquette's wariness about political discourse is that they often don't. Respect for opposing views is in short supply these days.

But if there weren't a great many people reserving judgment, we could all go to bed early on Election Night. These are the people whom etiquette hates to prevent from talking politics. In theory, they could trade information and insights, and all come out the wiser.

The practice, however, is miserable. Gentle Readers report being hounded by acquaintances and strangers declaring and demanding views, berating the opposition and belittling their supporters.

So perhaps Miss Manners needn't put a ban on discussing politics -- but only on political polemics, posturing, prying and engaging others in conversations they do not want to have.


3952
Recommendations / OK to have only graduate professors?
« on: September 30, 2004, 12:02:14 PM »
This is my second year in graduate school. I know the professors here better than my undergrad profs (whom I am not in touch with). Is it OK to have two recommendations from grad professors (and one from an employer) but no undergrad profs?

3953
Recommendations / Asking a former boss for rec?
« on: September 30, 2004, 11:11:53 AM »
For a year, I worked for one manager. She and I talked often and she knew a lot about my goals, gave me a very positive performance review along with an on-the-spot bonus for excellent performance. However, two months ago she moved to another office in another city. Is it still OK to get her to write a recommendation rather than my current boss who barely knows me?

Also, I am pretty sure she has never written a recommendation for law school before. What do I need to tell her about it? What does it need to say, what info should I provide her with, etc.?

3954
General Off-Topic Board / Law & Order
« on: September 29, 2004, 08:58:00 PM »
So, who watches this show? I have no interest at all in being a trial lawyer, let alone a DA, but I love L&O. I get sucked into those stupid marathons on TNT where they run one episode straight into another so you keep watching. Chill out TV time will be one thing I'll miss when I'm in law school.

3955
Law School Applications / Financial aid and independence?
« on: September 29, 2004, 03:51:45 PM »
Here's another question. How do schools take into account your financial status if you have been out of school and are financially independent from your parents? When I am applying for financial aid from schools, I will have been out of school and working (and paying my own taxes) for over three years. My parents do not support me at all anymore, so how can schools take their income into account?

On the Georgetown site it says this:
"For full-time J.D. institutional aid applicants who are able to document their financial independence for a minimum specified amount of time from their parent(s) with federal tax records (both student and parent), this loan may be approved to replace the lesser of either the calculated parent contribution, or the annual maximum of $6,000. In addition, applicants must submit a notarized application and statement affirming their claim of independence. "

Does anyone know what that specified amount of time is?

3956
Law School Applications / When should I apply? for 2005 or 2006?
« on: September 29, 2004, 12:15:41 PM »
Hi, I'm new around here, but you all seem very helpful, so I'm asking your advice.

I've decided that I want to go to law school for communication/media law (especially international comm law). Right now I am working on a M.A. in Communication (my B.A. is in a romance language, graduated '03). Spring semester '05 will be my last semester of coursework, then I plan to finish my thesis and graduate in December of '05. (I also work full-time during the day, though in an unrelated, non-impressive job).

I really, really want to go to either NYU or Columbia for a number of reasons (not just because they are excellent schools). I think my application is solid, but not a shoo-in for those schools.
So, my question is: do I apply for Fall of 2005, even though I know I would have to defer until Fall 2006? This would give me an extra chance to apply the next year if I don't get in. Or do I just wait and apply Fall of 2006?

Any advice or comments would be appreciated - thanks!

Pages: 1 ... 391 392 393 394 395 [396]