Law School 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 - Nizzy

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
31
What up guys,

I'm a junior at an Ivy League school, have near a 3.3 (got the nasty grade trend, 2.8 1st 3 semesters, 3.8 next 3 semesters) VP of my class, Capt of a Varsity Sport and in ROTC.  What do I need on the LSAT to get into a top 10? Advice would be greatly appreciated.  I'm in the testmasters class right now and I scored a 155 on the 1st diagnostic.

Schools 11-14 not doin it for yah?  Decent first diag, but you'll prolly need something close to a 170 to have good shot

32
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: MAFIA LAW PROGRAMS
« on: May 11, 2005, 01:13:07 AM »
what is the best law school after which i can work for the mob? any kind: italian, russian, colombian, israeli, japanese, chinese or even french (kidding, they were kicked out of the mafia olympics).

i heard havard, chi town or even stanfart might be pretty good for this field, but i have my doubts. maybe indiana bloomington or seattle? usc must have connections... or cooley? but it is imperative for my gargantuan ego i go to the first tier.

where did robert duvall attend in godfather?

Columbia

33
Who here knows the difference between "reserve" and "waitlist" from Columbia? (other than the "reserve" isn't ranked) Which is better, and how do they decide between putting someone on "reserve" and placing someone on the waitlist?



Pretty sure the reserve is just columbia's special name for their wailist.

34

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

I can't speak for what he is claiming, but i only claimed there is theoretically no contradiction unless a law exists forbiding firing in that case.  They may very well exist, it is not something i have researched.  However, i would like to add that if a pharmacist has moral objections to selling something, he should have to mention this fact when he is being hired, or forever hold his peace (piece?).  Else, he could decide one day to be a Christian scientist and basically be allowed to sit around all day doing nothing. (ridiculously extreme example, but you get what i am saying)

35
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Anyone else going to GULC?
« on: May 06, 2005, 03:16:53 PM »
3Peat,

From the Curriculum B description on GULC's admitted student's website:

...Exposure to the important common-law principles comes in a context that emphasizes the connection between different areas of law and other disciplines. More emphasis is placed on the emergence of the regulatory state and on the impact government regulation has on legal theory and practice. Most significantly, the faculty make a concerted effort to integrate their various offerings and to teach students the ways in which seemingly unconnected legal problems pose common, recurring issues. In short, the curriculum focuses on the "big picture" -- not just the "what" of law, but also on the "why."

that sounds right up my alley.  why woudnt everyone want to focus onthe big picture?

Thats pretty funny, man.  And how come so many people don't like discussing philosophy with me?  A majority of people consider the 'why' rather irrelevant and want to focus more on practicality.  I can't tell them they are wrong to feel that way, but I just feel differently.  Join the club. (I imagine you literally will)

36

Your post is contradictory.  If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.

The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states.  So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.

As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case.  You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not.  I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope.  Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.


Tell me sir, how can you have it both ways:  #1 and #3.
If a pharmacist is protected under #1 for refusal for ANY reason (BTW: whoever mentioned ANY in a previous post is full of darn) , how can the business owner fire him under #3 ?



I am a bit confused how you could think there is a contradiction.  According to the law, the pharmacist would be allowed to decide not to fill the order.  Hence, he can't be forced by police or arrested.  But if his boss wants those orders to be filled, and he refuses, he can be fired.

This whole topic is silly to argue about since it is basically the moral arguement that gets the juices flowing, but it is the law the decides what is gonna be.  I think it should be the case that people can get their prescriptions filled, which is really only a problem if the pharmacy is the only one around.  And while i suppose i can understand the pro-life arguement about the morning after pill, objecting to birth control is unbelievably destructive and a reason why it is so hard to take them seriously sometimes.

37
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Anyone else going to GULC?
« on: May 04, 2005, 03:48:19 PM »
I went on the admitted students website, and there is a new option on the bottom to choose your curriculum.

38
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Anyone else going to GULC?
« on: May 04, 2005, 01:57:16 PM »
On the website, they claim that B might be more reading, but the extra reading is usually pretty interesting.  It also should be noted that you are ranked in your own section, if I recall, so it isn't like the A curriculum people end up with an advantage becaue of lighter workloads.

As for me, one of my majors is philosophy, so its a bit of a no-brainer choice.  I chose B today.

39
Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists / Re: Accepting a Waitlist offer
« on: April 29, 2005, 12:38:42 AM »
Lol, you people are crazy.  Schools don't think you have committed to attend just because you accepted a spot on the waitlist.  How crazy would it be to expect you to say yes even though they have essentially informed you that you are probably not getting in, and if you do get in, it will be whenever they feel like it.

Even sending deposits is not sketchy, and i am sure schools are plenty happy getting to keep your 250 dollars and letting some other person in.  The only thing I would consider morally questionable is promising to attend a school when you don't really mean it.  Not that everybody doesnt do that anyways.  Remember, you are just a set of numbers to them, don't bother feeling sympathy for law schools.

i'm pretty sure by "accepting a waitlist offer" the OP meant an offer of admission after being place on the waitlist, not accepting a spot on the waitlist in the first place

Ah, I see, that does seem to be the case. I don't see any moral distinction between accepting this offer and putting down a deposit if admitted normally.  The law schools don't make you pinky swear; the deposits exist for exactly this reason.  Don't worry about the law school, they don't love you for who you are, they send those nice love letters to all the girls...

40
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: rutgers vs WL at fordham
« on: April 29, 2005, 12:30:21 AM »
Hmm, I don't think there are any "fat sandwiches" at Rutgers-Newark are they? Those food trucks are only at New Brunswick.

Very true, very true.  Not that that stops me from ranting, but still.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5