Law School Discussion

Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?

Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« on: January 16, 2006, 10:17:40 PM »
Look, all students deserve respect, and you deserve to demand it from your professors, from the administration, from your fellow students, from your exam proctors, from your law firms.

We are all some of the smartest in the country.  We have knowledge people envy, and we know how to argue.  We are all PAYING for the education.  So why do we feel we DESERVE to be treated like military boot camp recruits?  Why do we female private part out when it comes to respect for our lives, for what we have achieved, for our families.  Why?  So that we can better ourselves through education and a career?  So that we can work to change society, like we did in the 1960's? 

Once they let you into the school, demand respect, if not solely because YOU GOT IN!  You deserve it!  Demand it!  What?  You think they'll kick you out or something?

Why do law students acts like sad slaves who must put up with how they are treated?  You people are some of the best and the brightest in the country, and yet you all act like you deserve this disrespect.  I don't get it.  When you really think about it, do you?

And demand Accuracy in Grades!  Demand more tests.  Demand TAs.

Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2006, 11:08:13 PM »
I'll give you one example before I go to bed (I have class tomorrow).

Last year I finished an exam and I brought it up to the test proctor, waited in line with the 75 other students from the class (ridiculous! we are supposed to get the kind of instruction we need--and I'm at a top school--when we are taught like cattle?!), and handed the test proctor my exam.

"Why don't you have your social security number on this bluebook?" they barked at me. "I am not going to take this bluebook [out of FOUR I missed ONE book, the last I filled in a rush] until you put your number on it."

"No problem, may I use your pen?" I asked.  I left my pen at my seat.

"I shouldn't have to supply a pen to you!  How old are you?" replied the proctor.

Do you think I took that?  I'm 31 years old. I've skydove over Italy.  I've managed the simultaneous closings of two ten-billion dollar transactions.  I've camped in the Amazon.  I moved to New York City on my own dime and made a success of it.  Who the hell are you to talk to me like that, when I show you nothing but courtesy?  I pay to take this course and this exam, I do not pay for your disrespect.

You think I didn't say that?  I certainly did.  Disrespect me, and I will disrespect you.  What were they going to do, not take my test because I did not take their disrespect?

Look - all you guys have the intelligence, or you wouldn't be in law school.  Get some confidence and stick up for yourselves. 

If you want to know more, go to the Socratic Method board and read the discussion there.


  • ****
  • 349
    • View Profile
Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2006, 04:48:02 AM »
thats a little nuts. the proctors at my school are very nice.

Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2006, 06:01:37 AM »
Believe it or not, I heard they used to be worse at mine!

But it's a good indication that instead of being treated like accomplished adults in pursuit of enlightment and education, we are treated like children and not accorded basic respect by much of the authority we come across. 

And we pay astronomical costs to do so.  And then when we get into the working world, we will be expected to shelve any semblance of a human life.  And we take it without question.

No wonder the whole system continues.   And we are all expected to graduate and advocate for our clients, when we can not even advocate for ourselves?

This is one solution for a fix (it is not the only or even necessarily the best):

Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2006, 06:13:23 AM »
For f-ck's sake.
You're getting seriously tiresome now.  You actually had a moment where you were generating some discussion, and now you're just further exposing yourself as a whiny and arrogrant person. 
A proctor snapped at you.  Big fricking deal.


  • ****
  • 349
    • View Profile
Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2006, 07:39:20 AM »
i agree with lincoln. grow up chris.

Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2006, 12:04:48 PM »
I give one example and that's all you guys point to?  It's just an example.  I can provide others.  A friend of mine who is a Greek Orthodox priest went up to our Property professor to say hello outside of class.  When he asked him, "how long have you taught this subject?" the guy said "three years" and then abruptly walked away without ending the conversation. 

What's YOUR problem Lincoln?  If I am getting so tiresome, then why do you feel so compelled to read my threads?  It's almost a compulsion for you.  You can very easily ignore them.  Why don't you?  You seem to get some thrill --like a troll does-- out of goading people. And you do so w/little intelligence.  You should stick to AOL chat rooms or MySpace to get your thrills, where people are less intelligent and will fall for it more easily.   

Attack me, don't admit it, whatever.  Fact is, one exam over a year long course is an inherently inaccurate measure of one's ability to practice law.  Why don't you debate that idea, instead of debate me?  What's wrong with you all?

In the end, if what I am talking about doesn't resonate with you, then move on and go about your day and don't check back.  It's really just that simple.


Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2006, 03:04:44 PM »
I agree with Chris. During one of our finals, a proctor (a secretary and undergrad at the school) yelled at the people seated in the room to "shut your mouths." There was 10 minutes until the exam was to begin. She had no business to conduct, or announcements to make. That was way inappropriate. The point is we are all adults. Adults who pay alot of money to go to these schools. To some extent we pay for what we get, and some of the way things are done are part of what we pay for. But, I can never tolerate unprofessional disrespect. I'm nearly thirty years old for christ's sake. On the flipside, we live in a world where people don't always treat us like we'd like to be treated. Sometimes it's just tough.


  • ****
  • 1578
  • Mo
    • View Profile
Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2006, 06:23:48 PM »
Once I was at a restraunt and the guy bussing tables spilled some water on me. For godsake I had paied for the meal and he did this to me! Being the 'female private part' I am I simply wiped it up and went on with my life.

Re: Why do law students act like they deserve disrespect?
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2006, 06:45:40 PM »
Yeah, giffy, that's exactly what I think is wrong with the country--and laws schools--today.  To you it's "don't sweat the small stuff" to me it's an inaccurate system that keeps us indentured servants to our debt for the rest of our lives.  Yeah - that's a glass of water falling.   I don't want the juris doctor program easier, I want it more accurate.  But you'll take your licks and go about your way, which is normal today....

We don't fix problems.  We don't fix levees.  Our chemical plants--including a chrlorine gas (the first biological weapon) storage yard south of New York--are completely unguarded.  Our borders are open wide.  Our ports are barely checked.  Only two localities in the United States (Norfolk and some small town in Florida) are prepared for Tsunamis.  New Orleans is unfixed and choking.  The next hurricane season is around the bend.  Meanwhile, the murder rate in Houston soared 70% since the evacuees--jobless, nothing left to lose--have made it their home.

Student loans were cut by 15 billion.  Were in the middle of two wars yet we cut taxes on the wealthy but cut student loans and medicare.  We advocate torture, secret jails, and we have kept prisoners on Guantanamo for four years holding them without charges and without access to family, friends or courts and tribunals.

Avian flu is mutating, having outbreaks in humans in increasing numbers, and it's now mutated beyond the use of two drugs previously thought effective.  Let's hope an earthquake doesn't strike, aye Cali?

Yeah, giffy, go on your way and belittle the real problems we face.  Who is to fix all this?  Is it to be lawyers, educated on these very topics?  Doubtful, at least not to the degree needed.  We go through an emotionally brutal three year program that does not accurately measure ability or worth, where we are looked down upon (not always) by the self-importance that is the hallmark of all academia (mixed with an attorney's healthy ego).  Then we get shovelled into firms that expect us to bill 2200/2300 hours a year (I include time you can't bill to the client, but is considered "firm time" - you won't always be billing).

Our families suffer, our anxiety increases, we find we can't enjoy the money we make.  And we can't engage in our communities working so many hours, so many weekends.

Then who is left out there to start figuing out how we are going to climb out of the urgent problems our economy faces (see article from The Economist below - hope there's jobs).  How are we going to deal with the extraordinary consumer debt everyone owes? Both parents must work. The United States last year now spends more than it saves - we spend more than we make, in other words.  And Asia owns our debt.  Great, if you don't mind ceding such power to others.

Yeah, Giffy, we shouldn't try and fix the problems the legal community faces.  Who cares, right?

America's economy
Danger time for America

Jan 12th 2006
From The Economist print edition
The economy that Alan Greenspan is about to hand over is in a much less healthy state than is popularly assumed

DESPITE his rather appealing personal humility, the tributes lavished upon Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, become more exuberant by the day. Ahead of his retirement on January 31st, he has been widely and extravagantly acclaimed by economic commentators, politicians and investors. After all, during much of his 18˝ years in office America enjoyed rapid growth with low inflation, and he successfully steered the economy around a series of financial hazards. In his final days of glory, it may therefore seem churlish to question his record. However, Mr Greenspan's departure could well mark a high point for America's economy, with a period of sluggish growth ahead. This is not so much because he is leaving, but because of what he is leaving behind: the biggest economic imbalances in American history.


So far as the American economy is concerned, however, the Fed's policies of the past decade look like having painful long-term costs. It is true that the economy has shown amazing resilience in the face of the bursting in 2000-01 of the biggest stockmarket bubble in history, of terrorist attacks and of a tripling of oil prices. Mr Greenspan's admirers attribute this to the Fed's enhanced credibility under his charge. Others point to flexible wages and prices, rapid immigration, a sounder banking system and globalisation as factors that have made the economy more resilient to shocks.

The economy's greater flexibility may indeed provide a shock-absorber. A spurt in productivity has also boosted growth. But the main reason why America's growth has remained strong in recent years has been a massive monetary stimulus. The Fed held real interest rates negative for several years, and even today real rates remain low. Thanks to globalisation, new technology and that vaunted flexibility, which have all helped to reduce the prices of many goods, cheap money has not spilled into traditional inflation, but into rising asset prices instead—first equities and now housing. The Economist has long criticised Mr Greenspan for not trying to restrain the stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s, and then, after it burst, for inflating a housing bubble by holding interest rates low for so long (see article). The problem is not the rising asset prices themselves but rather their effect on the economy. By borrowing against capital gains on their homes, households have been able to consume more than they earn. Robust consumer spending has boosted GDP growth, but at the cost of a negative personal saving rate, a growing burden of household debt and a huge current-account deficit.
Burning the furniture

Ben Bernanke, Mr Greenspan's successor, likes to explain America's current-account deficit as the inevitable consequence of a saving glut in the rest of the world. Yet a large part of the blame lies with the Fed's own policies, which have allowed growth in domestic demand to outstrip supply for no less than ten years on the trot. Part of America's current prosperity is based not on genuine gains in income, nor on high productivity growth, but on borrowing from the future. The words of Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist of the early 20th century, nicely sum up the illusion: “It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But he should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises.”

As a result of weaker job creation than usual and sluggish real wage growth, American incomes have increased much more slowly than in previous recoveries. According to Morgan Stanley, over the past four years total private-sector labour compensation has risen by only 12% in real terms, compared with an average gain of 20% over the comparable period of the previous five expansions. Without strong gains in incomes, the growth in consumer spending has to a large extent been based on increases in house prices and credit. In recent months Mr Greenspan himself has given warnings that house prices may fall, and that this in turn could cause consumer spending to slow. In addition, he suggests that foreigners will eventually become less eager to finance the current-account deficit. Central banks in Asia and oil-producing countries have so far been happy to buy dollar assets in order to hold down their own currencies. However, there is a limit to their willingness to keep accumulating dollar reserves. Chinese officials last week offered hints that they are looking eventually to diversify China's foreign-exchange reserves. Over the next couple of years the dollar is likely to fall and bond yields rise as investors demand higher compensation for risk.

When house-price rises flatten off, and therefore the room for further equity withdrawal dries up, consumer spending will stumble. Given that consumer spending and residential construction have accounted for 90% of GDP growth in recent years, it is hard to see how this can occur without a sharp slowdown in the economy.

Handovers to a new Fed chairman are always tricky moments. They have often been followed by some sort of financial turmoil, such as the 1987 stockmarket crash, only two months after Mr Greenspan took over. This handover takes place with the economy in an unusually vulnerable state, thanks to its imbalances. The interest rates that Mr Bernanke will inherit will be close to neutral, neither restraining nor stimulating the economy. But America's domestic demand needs to grow more slowly in order to bring the saving rate and the current-account deficit back to sustainable levels. If demand fails to slow, he will need to push rates higher. This will be risky, given households' heavy debts. After 13 increases in interest rates, the tide of easy money is now flowing out, and many American households are going to be shockingly exposed. In the words of Warren Buffett, “It's only when the tide goes out that you can see who's swimming naked.”