Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
 21 
 on: August 26, 2015, 01:32:28 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by Citylaw
What is more real Politics or Pro Wrestling?

In both you scream as loudly and taunt the other, but then put on a fake show and don't actually do anything.

To summarize why does anyone care anymore about Politics than who the current WWE champ is?

 22 
 on: August 26, 2015, 07:38:05 AM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
"you start a separate argument and then ask me to provide citations???"

I think you are unclear on the concept. I do not "ask" for things you cannot provide. That was a very polite way of saying you are a fool.
well actually you did ask (you fool)
and more ad hominem
knee jerk city

Snakes formerly known as Pie,

You still seem to be unclear. Here, let me show you-

"Plaintiff failed to provide a citation for any facts or law alleged in its motion, or attach a supporting affidavit as required. This curious omission is indicative of the overall strength of Plaintiff's argument."

After a while, you get cured of the whole, "Derp, lying liar, derp, ad hom" style of argumentation. Or maybe not! Some people never learn.

 23 
 on: August 25, 2015, 10:02:40 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
"you start a separate argument and then ask me to provide citations???"

I think you are unclear on the concept. I do not "ask" for things you cannot provide. That was a very polite way of saying you are a fool.
well actually you did ask (you fool)
and more ad hominem
knee jerk city

 24 
 on: August 25, 2015, 09:22:31 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by 🐍
But, fwiw, I neither know, nor care, if Clinton is telling the truth, or did something wrong.

You seem to place great valence on certain issues, no doubt influenced by your priors. I could care less. Clinton is not my preferred candidate. I just make Bayesian predictions. That's why I still think that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee - not because I support her, but because I know that Sander and O'Malley will never win the primaries, and no one else has (yet) announced their candidacy, and the Clinton, to date, has gone far past anyone else in the invisible primary. Also? Most voters aren't paying attention right now, so while you might care deeply, unless something real develops (which is unlikely) this will just be considered more partisan smoke- people who don't like her will continue to not like her, people who do like her will think it's a partisan witchhunt, and people in the middle (all three of them) won't be able to tease out the details a year from now.

Based upon what I know, I find it exceptionally unlikely that this will amount to anything. In addition, you have misinterpreted the facts to date (IMO). That doesn't mean you can't be right. Anything can happen. Maybe there will be some smoking gun. Maybe the constant "drip drip" of revelation will erode Clinton's support and cause her to drop out of the race. But I doubt it- and I find wagers tend to clarify matters.
Loki, you know how much I HATE the idea the agreeing with you, even remotely, on anything, but also factor in that this guy already claims to not only know what WILL happen in the future but what DID happen in the past. He was there I guess??? So much for due process. A Republican said she did it. She must have done it.

 25 
 on: August 25, 2015, 09:20:57 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by 🐍
Cin seems to have "should" confused with "will"

I remember a kid I grew up with telling me once when another kid threatened to kill him "He CANT do that" "what?" "He'd go to jail, so he CAN"T, this isn't some movie, this is REAL LIFE, get a clue!!!!"  (I almost felt the need to pop popcorn and get a rain coat and goggles to sit in the front row for the show)

The kid lived, and no doubt thought that "proof" of his theory, but it blows my mind to this day. Prison is filled with murderers but Ted Kennedy wasn't sharing a cell with anyone of them. Nor will Hillary.

 26 
 on: August 25, 2015, 04:43:08 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by loki13
But, fwiw, I neither know, nor care, if Clinton is telling the truth, or did something wrong.

You seem to place great valence on certain issues, no doubt influenced by your priors. I could care less. Clinton is not my preferred candidate. I just make Bayesian predictions. That's why I still think that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee - not because I support her, but because I know that Sander and O'Malley will never win the primaries, and no one else has (yet) announced their candidacy, and the Clinton, to date, has gone far past anyone else in the invisible primary. Also? Most voters aren't paying attention right now, so while you might care deeply, unless something real develops (which is unlikely) this will just be considered more partisan smoke- people who don't like her will continue to not like her, people who do like her will think it's a partisan witchhunt, and people in the middle (all three of them) won't be able to tease out the details a year from now.

Based upon what I know, I find it exceptionally unlikely that this will amount to anything. In addition, you have misinterpreted the facts to date (IMO). That doesn't mean you can't be right. Anything can happen. Maybe there will be some smoking gun. Maybe the constant "drip drip" of revelation will erode Clinton's support and cause her to drop out of the race. But I doubt it- and I find wagers tend to clarify matters.

 27 
 on: August 25, 2015, 04:28:13 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by loki13
*sigh*

"Mishandling of classified info shouldn't be difficult to grasp; we are just waiting to see in what manner this is prosecuted. "

Tell you what Cinnamon. We'll make a little bet- if they prosecute Clinton (or if she accepts any sort of deal that isn't some de minimis arrangment), then I will post "Cinnamon is right, and a political savant."

If not, then you will post, "Loki13 was right, and a political savant."

Loser doesn't get to post about politics again. We will give it, what, a four month time frame? Say, Christmas? One of will get a Christmas present. Sound good?

 28 
 on: August 25, 2015, 03:49:11 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by cinnamon synonym
"Nor will it."

This is what makes no sense.  Mishandling of classified info shouldn't be difficult to grasp; we are just waiting to see in what manner this is prosecuted.  Lets see what the FBI has to say when its done with its investigation.  I guess loki, you already know what they will find.  Amazing.

John Deutsch and sandy Berger compromised classified emails and were just as sloppy as Clinton.  Their cases began with an FBI investigation. The similarities particularly of the former with Clinton's situation are remarkable.

Neither though, had their own unprotected home server.

I guess I dont understand why you don't even see the possibility that Clinton mishandled classified info. Which is a serious crime.  If you could explain why you are so sure she did nothing illegal I think it would explain your point. Do you just feel that she is telling the truth? Help me out.

You must have thought it was strange when they began their investigation since Clinton did nothing wrong.

 29 
 on: August 25, 2015, 03:43:06 PM 
Started by MinaNicole - Last post by Citylaw
As Loki says you can retake with no repercussion as far I am aware schools have done away with averaging scores.

As to the reading anxiety it is a different kind of test than what most undergrads are you used to. In undergrad you basically learn information and regurgitate it, but the LSAT, law school and the legal profession is not really regurgitating facts it is learning to analyze issues with a few facts quickly.

As an example gay marriage was a recent Supreme Court decision there is no dispute about the facts. The lawyers all agreed on who was involved in the lawsuit, what the issue was etc, the lawyers had on both sides had to use these facts and analyze them to create an argument. 

Just as in a law school exam you will essentially be given a fact-pattern such as this. The exam Obama gave to his students at U of Chicago in 1996. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/conlaw3.obama.1996.fall.pdf  . These facts are completely made up, but you will use what you learned in class to offer analysis to the questions. Reciting a list of the cases you read during the year or the facts of those cases on the test would result in an F.  Instead in the first fact pattern involving a lesbian couples right to children and state action you will have to apply the 14th Amendment, fundamental right cases etc that you learned to the situation then do an IRAC, which will result in a conclusion either for or against the couple (you will not be marked down for saying they should have the kid or not you simply make an argument and reach a decision." My favorite quote from BarBri was that one of two lawyers in every case is wrong, but if you don't make an argument then your in trouble. 

Then when you are an attorney a client will come to your office with a problem. Their problem is unlikely to fit any fact pattern you learned in law school, but you will hear their issue and apply the law as you know it. For example a client comes into your office saying the City will not let him do his Monthly Muslim Midnight marches through the residential neighborhood in the fictional City/State of Wazoo that Obama made up.

You will know Freedom of Religion exists, but you will also know there are time manner and place restrictions on the exercise of speech-religion etc along with a few other things I have long since forgot since Con-Law 2 I read Obama's Con-law 2 exam and now just realized how much I had forgotten : (

The point of all this is that law school and the legal profession is different. There is no "right answer" learning to obtain facts and analyze them very precisely is what the LSAT tests and it is not a fact driven test such where they ask questions with black & white answers. I.E. Who was the First President of the U.S. there is no debate on that question and that is the type of fact driven scenario most students are used to including myself before law school.

So you are right to be anxious it is a nerve wrecking test, but it is only the first step. Study, practice and do as well as you. Do not put unrealistic expectations on yourself I am sure I and everyone else on this board would love to see you get a 180 on it, but there is a 99% chance that is not going to happen. Instead you will study and I would your score will be somewhere between 150-160, which can get you into a number of law schools, but 99% of lawyers did not get a 180 or attend Harvard or Yale Law School so you have to be willing to accept that. Study your butt off get an LSAT score see what your options realistically are then make a decision to attend law school, forget law school, or retake the test, but step 1 is taking the first test.

I have seen so many people talk about law school and put off the LSAT and their life for years and now that I am 32 many of those people I went to undergrad with never ended up taking the LSAT let alone attending law school, but they put their lives on hold for 4-5 years thinking they weren't quite ready for the test. Meanwhile I took it and I did not set any records on the LSAT, but I did well enough to get into an ABA school with a solid scholarship and passed the bar first time. I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I took the steps necessary and didn't overthink the process. I hope you will do the same and wish you the best of luck.




 30 
 on: August 25, 2015, 02:41:52 PM 
Started by MinaNicole - Last post by loki13
Mina,

I'm not sure if there's a generalized answer for you. If it's LSAT-specific (in other words, you performed fine in undergraduate), then you may just need to acclimate. Practice by taking times practice tests. Repeat. Keep repeating. Get a comfort level. Once you get more used to taking it in a structured and timed environment, it should get easier and get you used to the real thing.

Next, remember that you can always re-take it. Try and take some of the pressure off of you. You will certainly get some answers wrong- and that's okay! Just keep going on.

If these steps do not measurably help with your stress level, talk to a professional about what other factors might be at play.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10