Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL  (Read 105991 times)

Hamilton

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #540 on: November 07, 2011, 12:35:21 PM »
You are joking right?  Why get a JD to work in a job not requiring a JD?  The guy with a JD flipping burgers is not "unempluyed?"  Maybe not for the Bureau of Labor, but from a practical standpoint of getting a fair measure of worthiness of law school education he is.  Spend $100K so you can be "employed" making $25K/year?  MADNESS to do it and madness to justify it!!!

Anyone can play silly games with statistics -- bottom line is if you get a JD you generally do it to be an attorney.  If you are not working as an attorney, you should be counted as "unemployed" when it comes to measuring the employment percentage for law school graduates.  Yes, a trifling handfull go to law school with no intention of practicing law, but that number is so inconsequential it does not register.

The 99% are 99% of the problem.

point? unemployment is lower. If that means you have to get a JD to work at BK fine. Do that or join the bread line.

justanothersucker

  • Guest
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #541 on: November 07, 2011, 12:44:06 PM »
Bottom line is they DO have jobs in the legal field. LOSERS cry the loudest. They DEMAND to be heard.

If you get a JD and pass the bar. You will get a job as a lawyer. If you don't, you just aren't trying hard enough or are a pathetic loser.

Law Firms say the #1 thing they look at is if you "fit into their culture" If you are a malcontent, guess what? You smell of it and they won't want you. If everyone else wants to sit at a different table, stop askign yourself what's wrong with the world and ask yourself what's wrong with you.

justanothersucker

  • Guest
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #542 on: November 07, 2011, 12:55:59 PM »
First, read my post above. Next, do some research. Those who make low income DON'T go into real debt. They go into income based repayment. They make as low as 0 payments each month and it builds good credit and then goes away on its own after 20 years without even having to do bankruptcy. So if you are the loser who can't get along with grown ups and gets stuck at Kmart you still come out ahead. Lower unemployment, good credit, and assuming someday you pull your head out of your ass........ a grown up job with a tie like the big boys.

You are joking right?  Why get a JD to work in a job not requiring a JD?  The guy with a JD flipping burgers is not "unempluyed?"  Maybe not for the Bureau of Labor, but from a practical standpoint of getting a fair measure of worthiness of law school education he is.  Spend $100K so you can be "employed" making $25K/year?  MADNESS to do it and madness to justify it!!!

Anyone can play silly games with statistics -- bottom line is if you get a JD you generally do it to be an attorney.  If you are not working as an attorney, you should be counted as "unemployed" when it comes to measuring the employment percentage for law school graduates.  Yes, a trifling handfull go to law school with no intention of practicing law, but that number is so inconsequential it does not register.

The 99% are 99% of the problem.

point? unemployment is lower. If that means you have to get a JD to work at BK fine. Do that or join the bread line.

Hamilton

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #543 on: November 07, 2011, 03:53:49 PM »
You have a lot of growing up to do and a lot to learn son.

First, read my post above. Next, do some research. Those who make low income DON'T go into real debt. They go into income based repayment. They make as low as 0 payments each month and it builds good credit and then goes away on its own after 20 years without even having to do bankruptcy. So if you are the loser who can't get along with grown ups and gets stuck at Kmart you still come out ahead. Lower unemployment, good credit, and assuming someday you pull your head out of your ass........ a grown up job with a tie like the big boys.

You are joking right?  Why get a JD to work in a job not requiring a JD?  The guy with a JD flipping burgers is not "unempluyed?"  Maybe not for the Bureau of Labor, but from a practical standpoint of getting a fair measure of worthiness of law school education he is.  Spend $100K so you can be "employed" making $25K/year?  MADNESS to do it and madness to justify it!!!

Anyone can play silly games with statistics -- bottom line is if you get a JD you generally do it to be an attorney.  If you are not working as an attorney, you should be counted as "unemployed" when it comes to measuring the employment percentage for law school graduates.  Yes, a trifling handfull go to law school with no intention of practicing law, but that number is so inconsequential it does not register.

The 99% are 99% of the problem.

point? unemployment is lower. If that means you have to get a JD to work at BK fine. Do that or join the bread line.

justanothersucker

  • Guest
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #544 on: November 09, 2011, 08:41:39 PM »
typical final knee jerk responce when all else fails. If 98.5% of lawyers can do just fine, just try to keep up.

You have a lot of growing up to do and a lot to learn son.

First, read my post above. Next, do some research. Those who make low income DON'T go into real debt. They go into income based repayment. They make as low as 0 payments each month and it builds good credit and then goes away on its own after 20 years without even having to do bankruptcy. So if you are the loser who can't get along with grown ups and gets stuck at Kmart you still come out ahead. Lower unemployment, good credit, and assuming someday you pull your head out of your ass........ a grown up job with a tie like the big boys.

You are joking right?  Why get a JD to work in a job not requiring a JD?  The guy with a JD flipping burgers is not "unempluyed?"  Maybe not for the Bureau of Labor, but from a practical standpoint of getting a fair measure of worthiness of law school education he is.  Spend $100K so you can be "employed" making $25K/year?  MADNESS to do it and madness to justify it!!!

Anyone can play silly games with statistics -- bottom line is if you get a JD you generally do it to be an attorney.  If you are not working as an attorney, you should be counted as "unemployed" when it comes to measuring the employment percentage for law school graduates.  Yes, a trifling handfull go to law school with no intention of practicing law, but that number is so inconsequential it does not register.

The 99% are 99% of the problem.

point? unemployment is lower. If that means you have to get a JD to work at BK fine. Do that or join the bread line.

Hamilton

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #545 on: November 10, 2011, 11:04:47 AM »
*response.*  And 98.5% of lawyers who have graduated in the last 5 years are NOT doing just fine - especially T3/T4 grads.  Not that I owe you any explanation or justification, but as I have posted before, by any measure I am doing much more than "just fine" financially and professionally.  My comments and advice are not out of spite, malice, or anger, but rather out of experience and observation.  I believe in my heart that a T4 education for a lot of people is a very bad... "investment" just does not seem like the right word.  A lot of folks attending T3/4s are going to find that out.

People say "I'm not in it for the money."  When one spends $100K on the degree they better be in it for the money otherwise they are setting themselves up for financial ruin and will be out occupying (insert place name her) with the rest of the fleabaggers when they cannot pay their loans and have enough money to live a decent lifestyle.

justanothersucker

  • Guest
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #546 on: November 10, 2011, 08:44:04 PM »
If you are doing ok, then get over it. I get it, you have a few friends you personally know who are having a rough patch, or are crying that they are making "less than they deserve". Tell them to get a job in the construction industry or get over themselves.

*response.*  And 98.5% of lawyers who have graduated in the last 5 years are NOT doing just fine - especially T3/T4 grads.  Not that I owe you any explanation or justification, but as I have posted before, by any measure I am doing much more than "just fine" financially and professionally.  My comments and advice are not out of spite, malice, or anger, but rather out of experience and observation.  I believe in my heart that a T4 education for a lot of people is a very bad... "investment" just does not seem like the right word.  A lot of folks attending T3/4s are going to find that out.

People say "I'm not in it for the money."  When one spends $100K on the degree they better be in it for the money otherwise they are setting themselves up for financial ruin and will be out occupying (insert place name her) with the rest of the fleabaggers when they cannot pay their loans and have enough money to live a decent lifestyle.

Miria

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: TMT
« Reply #547 on: November 10, 2011, 11:40:00 PM »

Since life is meaningless and absurd we should find our own values we will live by. One value system suggested by social psychologists, broadly called Terror Management Theory, states that all human meaning is derived out of a fundamental fear of death, whereby values are selected when they allow us to escape the mental reminder of death. Terror management theory (TMT) looks at what researchers claim to be the implicit emotional reactions of people when confronted with the psychological terror of knowing we will eventually die (some believe that awareness of mortality is a trait that is unique to humans). The theory was first developed in the late 1980s by Skidmore College psychology professor Sheldon Solomon, University of Arizona psychology professor Jeff Greenberg, and Colorado University at Colorado Springs psychology professor Tom Pyszczynski, who were graduate students at the University of Kansas at the time. The trio were inspired by the theories of Ernest Becker (The Denial of Death, 1973), Otto Rank and Freud, on how potent reminders of one's own ultimate death often provoke a belief in some form of mystical transcendence (heaven, reincarnation, spiritualism, etc.) Terror management theory attempts to provide a rationale for the motivational catalysts of human behavior when life is threatened.

The theory builds from the assumption that the capability of self-reflection and the consciousness of one's own mortality can be regarded as a continuous source for existential anguish. This "irresolvable paradox" is created from the desire to preserve life and the realization of that impossibility (because life is finite). Humans are aware of the inevitability of their own death. Culture diminishes this psychological terror by providing meaning, organization and continuity to people's lives. Compliance with cultural values enhances one's feeling of security and self-esteem, provided that the individual is capable of living in accordance with whatever particular cultural standards apply to him or her. The belief in the rightness of the cultural values and standards creates the conviction necessary to live a reasonable and meaningful life. This cultural worldview provides a base of making sense of the world as stable and orderly, a place where one rests their hopes on symbolic immortality (e.g., fame, having children, legacies of wealth or fortune) or literal immortality (e.g., the promise of a life in an afterworld). Our cultural world view is a "symbolic protector" between the reality of life and inevitability of death. Because of this men and women strive to have their cultural worldview confirmed by others, thereby receiving the community's esteem. However, when one's worldview is threatened by the world view of another, it often results in one's self-respect being endangered as well. In such a situation people not only endeavor to deny or devalue the importance of others' world views, but try to controvert the ideas and opinions of others which may, as a consequence, escalate into a conflict (ie. religious holy wars). As a result, mortality salience increases stereotypic thinking and intergroup bias between groups.

[...]


Looks like you've not pasted the whole thing in here -

TMT attempts to link human drives together under the rubric of the fear of death. According to Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski, "All anxiety is derived from self-preservation instincts." TMT further argues that fear of death is the central force in evolution, motivating genetic self-preservation instincts in species and promoting natural selection. Emotion is both motivational and evolutionary. However, evolutionary psychologists have criticized TMT by arguing that because fear is an adaptive fitness response designed by natural selection to respond to specific fitness challenges, inhibiting anxiety would have been maladaptive in our ancestral past and ... it is therefore implausible that psychological processes for inhibiting anxiety ... would be active today."

On the other hand, Coalitional Psychology (CP) is presented as another alternative to TMT, which proposes that there is an evolutionary tendency to seek safety in groups (coalitions) as a reaction to adaptive threats. People already a part of coalitional groups seek to protect their membership by exhibiting their value to the group. In other words, belief systems, cosmologies, values, rituals, and various other trappings of culture exist simply to facilitate group cohesiveness; thus any meaning, sense of personal value, or hope of death transcendence such beliefs may provide is purely epiphenomenal to their coalition-binding function.
I teach "BE A B I T C H !"

Miria

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: A Death-Haunted Man?
« Reply #548 on: November 10, 2011, 11:58:58 PM »

The frenzy of destruction and the rejoicing in blood and ritualized murder arise from the fact that few can admit that none of our immortality systems or our glory fixes works at all. They are elaborate deceptions, illusions, rituals with no power to save. No matter how much wealth the rich person accumulates, or how great the power wielded by the king, everyone knows that the relatives will be fighting over the spoils before the body gets cold. Everyone knows that no Reich lasts a thousand years and no family line is assured of perpetuation. Furthermore, insofar as I derive my glory from merging myself with another person or system, to that degree I am less than whole. Borrowed glory is not my glory.

But these are the only buffers people have to shield themselves from the terrible dark and cold of the Void. The frenzy arises from the constant undercurrent of realization that the immortality strategies are illusion. The fact that they cannot save must be denied, hidden, repressed. [...]


Freud, for one, has been portrayed as a relentless materialist whose death-instinct theory has burdened us with a most unattractive load of pessimism, reductionism, past-driven determinism, and dualism. He may be seen as one of the last giants in a dying tradition. Ernst Becker (1973) is perhaps his severest critic. Becker sees Freud as a man who was haunted by death anxiety all his life. According to Becker, Thanatos represents a not-very-clever effort to conceal Freud's own death anxiety. Essentially, Thanatos is said to be Freud's way of avoiding confrontation with the "terror of death."


Also, while Becker accuses Freud for "being haunted with the death instinct," the ironic thing is that it's him who replaces the Freudian preoccupation with sexuality with the fear of death as the primary motivation in human behavior. (We all know that Freud was very specific when talking about sexuality, and very vague when talking about thanatos).
I teach "BE A B I T C H !"

justanothersucker

  • Guest
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #549 on: November 12, 2011, 02:17:18 PM »
Freud was a crack head. Literally. Why listen to someone who smokes rocks all day thinking about how cigars remind him of dicks, the sexual pleasure of pooping and how we all must want to bang our moms since he did?

Want Freud Generation2? Just hang out under the bridge and wait for it.