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 - Dante

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14
61
21/40
Hope it helped you...take care.

62
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Favorite commercial of all time...
« on: October 05, 2005, 02:48:52 AM »
Budwesier (or Busch) commercial with the horses and the ranchers... horses start runnin' round, then they start playing football.  After a TD, they line up and kick an extra point. 
Rancher #1 - They always do that?
Rancher #2 - Naw.  Sometimes they go for 2.
That is a good one, but I like the one with the zebra (referee) reviewing the play and all the others standing around waiting for the decision.

63
Law School Applications / Re: pre-law major
« on: October 03, 2005, 10:40:22 AM »
Found this...kind of old, but hope it helps.  Personally, I still believe your numbers will matter the most in the end.  Just think...look, he had a 170 and 3.8 but we can't let him in because he has a BS in CJ...poor guy...





PREPARATION FOR LAW SCHOOL

    No such thing as a "prelaw major" should exist at any undergraduate institution.  Prelaw advisors at 4-year schools come from a variety of disciplines, and receive the frequent correspondence that comes from LSAC, posting the brochures, flyers, etc. that law schools send out.  You can get advice about applying and attending law school from a variety of people, but this should not replace the advice you get from your regular academic advisor.  Any of a dozen LSAT workshops or test prep services also vary widely, and some test prep is better than none.  As a Justice Studies professor, I have to be honest and tell you that criminal justice is probably NOT what you should major in.  Many law school professors don't regard it as a rigorous enough subject, or they have a personal bias of some sort, or they may prefer to teach you everything you need to know about law while you are in their hands.  Here's a table of the:

BEST MAJORS TO TAKE IN COLLEGE TO GET INTO LAW SCHOOL

#1 English 35%
#2 Philosophy 28%
#3 Economics 15%
#4 Political Science 13%
#5 Other 11%
#6 Psychology 5%
#7 Sociology 4%
#8 Religion 3%
#9 Anthropology 2%
#10 Criminal Justice 1%
#11 Business 0.5%

Source: Chambliss, Wm. & Aida Yass (1995) "Law School Admission Criteria
and Criminal Justice Undergraduate Majors" ACJS Today XIV(2):1-3

64
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT 4 times, and no I am not insane
« on: September 27, 2005, 02:22:46 PM »
Hugh,

I am hoping that Oct scale will be better for you than June was for us...good luck and hang in there.

65
General Off-Topic Board / Re: College Football
« on: September 12, 2005, 09:43:09 PM »
It's nice to see the Weis might have the Irish moving in the right direction for a change...finally.  The Mich game was great, even if Mich offense couldn't find their ass with both hands.  Winning in their house is always a treat.

66
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: New Justices
« on: September 12, 2005, 04:02:22 PM »
You guys think there are some wacky initiation *&^% that'll go on with these new guys?  I can just see John Paul Stevens giving John Roberts swats, and Roberts saying "Thank you sir, may I have another"

and you would have to believe Thomas would be holding an inflatable doll in hand and a leash attached to a sheep in another....

67
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Girls: Ever had a Guy that CRIED AFTER SEX?
« on: September 09, 2005, 02:13:21 PM »


What about mahhhhh-ing?

Don't forget the velcro gloves...

68
General Off-Topic Board / Re: how sins of bush 0 supposedly hushed up
« on: September 08, 2005, 09:29:38 PM »
of course one must be careful when dealing with anonymous sources.  but my point was that there are very legitimate reasons (e.g. job security) for a source to request anonymity.  while noble, i think it's preposterous to expect someone to have to sacrifice his livelihood in order to come forward with the truth.

I agree with you in general. If the person is a true whistle blower and is attempting to bring the truth to light, I can understand their unwillingness to expose themselves professionally.  However, I think that this is rarely the case.  I believe that most of the "anonymous sources" are political hacks trying to spin their side of the story, with the hope that the attitude in the general public swings their way.  I think that both sides are guilty of this, from Clinton to Bush, and it leaves the American citizen with the responsibility to critically think about the information he/she accepts as the truth.  Rather than parrot the party line, I think we all would be better served if everyone started thinking for themselves and be a little more suspicious of what we see, read, and hear.

But again, just my 2 cents.


69
General Off-Topic Board / Re: how sins of bush 0 supposedly hushed up
« on: September 08, 2005, 05:41:40 PM »
what about deep throat?  Can anyone argue his info wasn't accurate and real?

that's my point.  i don't think it's reasonable to summarily dismiss information just because it comes from anonymous sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500605.html

...because we all know how well it worked for Newsweek...

read what they actually wrote, forrest.

I listed the article to show the problems that can come from relying on sources....unless of course you think Newsweek didn't have any problems as a result of that situation...

you setting up straw man.  that simply not issue under discussion.

try again.

Seems like there was several discussing the use of anonymous sources, with In Vino stating that he thought it was reasonable to accept some without question.  I was just pointing out what happens sometimes when one is willing to do just that. 

there's a difference between not summarily dismissing anonymous sources and accepting them without question.

My only point in the whole matter was that you had to be careful when dealing with any anonymous sources...that was all.  I just tend to question people that don't have the balls to attach their name to a piece of work, or a piece of information.  Makes me question their motivation behind it.  But, hey, do and think what ever you want.  After all, just ask Dan Rather about wanting to believe something so much that you fail to look at it objectively.

70
General Off-Topic Board / Re: how sins of bush 0 supposedly hushed up
« on: September 08, 2005, 05:09:58 PM »
what about deep throat?  Can anyone argue his info wasn't accurate and real?

that's my point.  i don't think it's reasonable to summarily dismiss information just because it comes from anonymous sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500605.html

...because we all know how well it worked for Newsweek...

read what they actually wrote, forrest.

I listed the article to show the problems that can come from relying on sources....unless of course you think Newsweek didn't have any problems as a result of that situation...

you setting up straw man.  that simply not issue under discussion.

try again.

Seems like there was several discussing the use of anonymous sources, with In Vino stating that he thought it was reasonable to accept some without question.  I was just pointing out what happens sometimes when one is willing to do just that. 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14