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 - hunterhogan

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16
101
Acceptances / Re: South Texas - deposit due April 1
« on: March 11, 2005, 03:36:40 PM »
Little envelope with only one page in it.

102
Acceptances / Re: South Texas - deposit due April 1
« on: March 11, 2005, 03:27:57 PM »
Good luck to you! I applied Jan 14th, complete on the the 18th.

103
Acceptances / South Texas - deposit due April 1
« on: March 11, 2005, 03:17:25 PM »
I got accepted to South Texas. I never got a notice that my file was complete from them.

I am happy that I have a choice that includes living in Houston, but the April 1st deadline is a bummer. 3 weeks is not very long to decide. I will probably ask them for an extra 2 weeks at some point.

104
Law School Applications / Re: Chicago-Kent Honors notices?
« on: March 11, 2005, 11:46:18 AM »
I called Kent just now. They said that all decisions have been mailed.

FYI

105
Great draft!

106
Law School Applications / Re: The identity of school x!
« on: March 11, 2005, 11:01:33 AM »
gabeo- Since the applicant already divulged his or her SSN and other private info to EACH of the schools involved (since he or she applied to them all), how do you figure that by comparing notes the info becomes more usable?  I could see if you applied to 9 schools and gave each of them one number in your SSN.  Then getting together to put the pieces together would be valuable... not to mention FUN!!       

Before the 2 schools share information, neither school can be sure that they other side actually has the SSN. There are 4 scenarios here:
1) Both schools have the SSN (protected info). If they share, then it can be argued that no one gained protected information that they didn't already have.
2) School A has the SSN, School B does not. When School A shares, then they just divulged proteced information.
3) School B has the SSN, School A does not. When School B shares, then they just divulged proteced information.
4) Neither school has the SSN. When they "share" no one gains.

So, you can see there are many times when the protected information gets shared with other people. The current system is fairly smart - protected information cannot be shared unless you agree to let it be shared.

107
3 and 4 seem redundant now. What can we do about that?

108
Dear Mr. Ramos,

I was pleased to have recently been admitted to the Class of 2008. As you know, choosing where to attend law school can be a difficult decision, and I have been impressed by the general policy at UT encouraging admitted students to contact your office when we have any questions.

I participate in an Internet discussion board located at www.lawschooldiscussion.org. A particularly active topic has raised some important questions for me. I hope that you will take the time address some of my concerns.

1) Did a representative of the University of Texas cross-reference any application with the user 'BigTex' on www.lawschoolnumbers.com  or www.lawschooldiscussion.org?
2) Did this ever lead to your office to be concerned about a possible “missing” addendum discussing the ethnic or racial background of the applicant?
3) Did anyone from UT, whether authorized or not, contact other schools about this issue in an attempt to gather more information?
4) Did anyone from UT attempt to contact the applicant to gather more information?

Having shared private information in my application with the University of Texas, I am interested in the way this information is treated. I am confident that you will be able to clarify this situation for me.

Furthermore, I plan to share your guidance with others at www.lawschooldiscussion.org.

Thank you,
<my name, LSAC #, SS#>


Good stuff overall. Write to him as an ally and he will be more likely to write back to you as an ally. And you two are allies - you both want to support the truth.

109
tag

110
First, I think it is totally cool to want to go to law school simply for the money. Also, as someone else pointed out, there are very few jobs in public interest, so most of us will not be working to "change the world" after we graduate.

I'd like to add something to the "mercenary" idea.

I was speaking with a friend - he's an attorney. We were discussing this topic and he brought something to my attention. He said after the time he spent in law school and his experience as an associate, you really start to think differently than you ever had in your life - and you analyze every argument in a "lawyerlike" manner. Thus, you begin to see the pros and cons of both sides of the argument, and it becomes less a moral issue and more of a legal argument battle of wits. So, it's not as if you sold your soul - unless you're defending genocide. There are always two (or more) sides to an issue. We just fail to comprehend the other side(s) in our everyday lives.

I believe that this process does happen. However, this is not necessarily the final stage.

Normal humans go through stages of moral development. I personally find Kohlberg's stages compelling. http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html There is actually a stage called “Law and Order” that he believes most adults stay in. This stage is characterized by an orientation towards duty or obligation.

If you take an adult that is in this stage and teach him law, then you did not evolve or devolve him in terms of moral behavior.  Because the same group of laws can often be applied to come to mutually exclusive positions, the lawyer can use his new skills to destroy the framework of the “Law and Order” moral stage.

Let me pause for a moment and make some points. I do not personally believe that someone in stage 5 or 6 is somehow superior to someone in the “Law and Order” stage. So, please do not attack that. Also, I do not think that my above hypothetical lawyer is inferior to any other person. I merely think that this model explains the attitude described by Bahamut.

Continuing.

We tend to move to the next moral stage by learning from others. Since there are more people that do not think like lawyers, I think non-lawyers have more opportunities to advance to the stage beyond the “Law and Order” stage. On the other hand, I think the analytical and critical thinking skills that successful lawyers have would make it easier to process the information necessary to move to the next level.

Overall, I think law school has little impact on whether someone progress past the typical views of morality. Although, I do agree that most lawyers exist in a stage parallel to the typical “Law and Order” adults.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16