Law School Discussion

Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!

Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« Reply #150 on: September 01, 2006, 02:23:40 AM »
Pyramid promoters are masters of group psychology. At recruiting meetings they create a frenzied, enthusiastic atmosphere where group pressure and promises of easy money play upon people's greed and fear of missing out on a good deal. It is difficult to resist this kind of appeal unless you recognize that the scheme is rigged against you. 

Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« Reply #151 on: September 02, 2006, 05:49:21 PM »
Well, law school is what you make it.  You can go to a T1 school and score poorly, not network, nor create opportunities for yourself or you can go to a T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys, bust your butt, and get the jobs.  It is your choice of what you do after law school.  If you plan for what you want to do, then you can do it regardless of the school.  Both T1 schools and T4 schools have their faults.  It can be argued the same for big firm/small firm or public/private sector.  I was in the legal field for years before going to law school.  I was fortunate to work downtown DC.  I gained experience at a small firm and a large national firm.  In both firms, the attorneys went to schools in all tiers.  I hate to see people talk about things that they dont know anything about.  Be realistic and understand that people make choices based upon their needs; not anyone elses. 

Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« Reply #152 on: September 03, 2006, 02:13:56 AM »
Well, law school is what you make it.  You can go to a T1 school and score poorly, not network, nor create opportunities for yourself or you can go to a T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys, bust your butt, and get the jobs.  It is your choice of what you do after law school.  If you plan for what you want to do, then you can do it regardless of the school.  Both T1 schools and T4 schools have their faults.  It can be argued the same for big firm/small firm or public/private sector.  I was in the legal field for years before going to law school.  I was fortunate to work downtown DC.  I gained experience at a small firm and a large national firm.  In both firms, the attorneys went to schools in all tiers.  I hate to see people talk about things that they dont know anything about.  Be realistic and understand that people make choices based upon their needs; not anyone elses. 

A T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys?  I doubt you're going to find any of those.  Being known to produce crap attorneys (or grads who can't pass the bar at all) is part of how a school winds up in the fourth tier.

I'd also be interested in hearing what the "faults" of T1 schools, relative to T4s, are.

Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« Reply #153 on: September 12, 2006, 08:27:23 PM »
 
A T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys? I doubt you're going to find any of those.  Being known to produce crap attorneys (or grads who can't pass the bar at all) is part of how a school winds up in the fourth tier.


Well, there will be like 5 out of 340 graduates who'll go to big law ..

Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« Reply #154 on: September 12, 2006, 08:38:27 PM »
Well, law school is what you make it.  You can go to a T1 school and score poorly, not network, nor create opportunities for yourself or you can go to a T4 that is known to produce excellent attorneys, bust your butt, and get the jobs.  It is your choice of what you do after law school.  If you plan for what you want to do, then you can do it regardless of the school.  Both T1 schools and T4 schools have their faults.  It can be argued the same for big firm/small firm or public/private sector.  I was in the legal field for years before going to law school.  I was fortunate to work downtown DC.  I gained experience at a small firm and a large national firm.  In both firms, the attorneys went to schools in all tiers.  I hate to see people talk about things that they dont know anything about.  Be realistic and understand that people make choices based upon their needs; not anyone elses. 

I'd also be interested in hearing what the "faults" of T1 schools, relative to T4s, are.

Likely faults of T1 schools relative to T4s?

I've found that it really sucks having to choose between jobs.

Re: Amway
« Reply #155 on: September 13, 2006, 03:09:19 AM »

Well, if you think in these terms, you might as well consider the entire society a cult ... I mean, the hierarchical structure that the current social order entails may well be seen as a pyramidal scheme on the top of which are those who do nothing but lie and the further down you go the more suckers you find ..




Very intriguing posts, r e g g i e!

melissa

  • *
  • 1
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« Reply #156 on: September 13, 2006, 02:49:44 PM »
Indeed, c a t a l i n a!

Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« Reply #157 on: September 15, 2006, 01:37:57 PM »

Well, there will be like 5 out of 340 graduates who'll go to big law ..


You mean 5% of 340 graduates?

Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« Reply #158 on: September 15, 2006, 05:19:58 PM »

Well, there will be like 5 out of 340 graduates who'll go to big law ..


You mean 5% of 340 graduates?

That's if they're lucky.

THE COLLAPSE OF VERTICALLY STRUCTURED INSTITUTIONS
« Reply #159 on: September 23, 2006, 09:19:40 PM »

Well, if you think in these terms, you might as well consider the entire society a cult ... I mean, the hierarchical structure that the current social order entails may well be seen as a pyramidal scheme on the top of which are those who do nothing but lie and the further down you go the more suckers you find ..




In case anyone here has not noticed, modern society is collapsing. Traditional, vertically-structured social systems are eroding, their places being taken by horizontal networks of autonomous individuals and associations. The pyramid -- with its top-down, command-and-control systems of centralized authority -- has been the dominant social organization model in Western society since at least the time of Plato. The underlying assumption of pyramidal systems is that social order can be realized only if decision-making is centralized within established institutions -- institutions through which the exercise of unilaterally-directed authority can channel the turbulent forces of human society to productive and harmonious ends.

The pyramidal model has long been reinforced by Isaac Newton's reductionist and mechanistic model of the universe. This view of nature is premised on the idea that all matter consists of fundamental building blocks -- the atom being the preferred explanation -- held together, and their behavior regulated, by discernible "laws" (e.g., laws of motion, gravity, light, thermodynamics, etc.). Implicit in such a model is the idea that nature is structured in relatively simple patterns capable of calculation which can be accurately identified and measured. Because of the presumption of certainty inherent in such a model, it has long been an established article of faith that, given sufficient information, it is possible for human beings to predict the consequences of events in both our physical and social worlds. The pyramidal model is the one upon which institutions operate, be they business corporations, hierarchical religions, most school systems, or the state. In a chain-of-command fashion, decision-making authority "trickles down" from institutional leaders to the "rank-and-file" members at different levels in the hierarchy. Corporate managers; classroom teachers; legislators, judges, prime ministers and presidents; and ecclesiastical officials, may function in different settings, but each operates on the same premise of establishing order through the exercise of their will over others. No clearer statement of the pyramidal premise has been uttered, in recent decades, than by former U.S. Secretary of Defense and industrial leader, Robert McNamara, who said "[v]ital decision-making, particularly in policy matters, must remain at the top. This is partly, though not completely, what the top is for."

Implicit in the pyramidal model is the assumption that the institution involved is its own reason for being. What might have begun as a flexible, organizational tool allowing individuals to cooperate for the production of life-sustaining values, comes to be regarded as an end in itself. The successes that were facilitated through the use of organizational machinery tend to produce, in our minds, a dependency upon the system, rather than upon the creative and resilient processes that led us to create this tool for cooperation. With the support of those who have become the leaders, we come to endow the organization with a need for permanency. In this way the organization gets turned into an institution, its own raison d'Ítre. So constituted, the institution resists the processes of adaptation necessary to a creative system, and develops preferences for stability, security, and a resistance to change. Instead of adapting itself to the fluctuations of an inconstant environment, it seeks to force its environment to adapt to its needs for certainty and permanence. In their efforts to stabilize and preserve their positions, institutions have had to call upon the state to establish -- and enforce -- standards of both conduct and goods and services to which others must conform. Because the state is an institution that enjoys a monopoly on the use of violence within a given geographic area, its powers become essential to the regularization of human behavior. Such efforts on behalf of stabilized uniformity are brought about and reinforced through standardized thinking, in which men and women learn to value security above individual liberty. American politics is firmly grounded in the worship of "security:" social security, job security, homeland security, airport security, and the security of national borders, being just a few examples. Lest the public discover what its government has been up to, efforts to reveal such knowledge are routinely repressed in the name of national security.

Part of the popular mindset that permits the state to assume its role of monopolistic authority in a vertically-structured power system, is the belief that political officials possess a level of knowledge -- approaching omniscience -- allowing them to foresee conditions, assess the factors influencing the future, and to formulate programs and policies that will lead to predictably satisfactory ends. This is an illusion that can be traced back to Plato's "Republic," and his "philosopher kings." Government-directed economic and social planning proceeds from this assumption, a belief empirically destroyed by the 20th century failure of systems of state planning. The problems created by institutionalization center on the fact that any system must constantly renew itself if it is to survive. This is true for an individual, an organization, or a civilization. All systems are subject to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropic principle that a closed system will move from a state of order to disorder. But human beings and our social systems are open -- not closed systems -- meaning that they can resist entropy, at least temporarily, by ingesting energy from our environments. For any system to remain vibrant, it must constantly renew itself in a constantly changing universe. But such renewal can occur only by the system undergoing change, moving in the direction of a more orderly condition. Such demands run counter to institutional demands for stability, security, and equilibrium.

In their efforts to create and structure order, institutions produce the rigidity that interferes with change and, paradoxically, generate disorder that can lead to the entropic death not only of individual systems, but entire civilizations. Efforts to structure and restrain the processes by which systems produce the values upon which a civilization depends, can produce dysfunctional consequences. A number of historians have emphasized how the processes of institutionalization, standardization, and other practices designed to enforce organizational stability, contribute to the decline of civilizations. A creative, vibrant civilization, in other words, is dynamic, not stable; adaptive to change, not burdened by equilibrium. It is characterized not by those who seek to preserve what they have, but by those who seek to produce what their minds tell them they can have. Individual liberty abounds in such a society, as men and women advance new ideas, new technologies, and new practices in pursuit of their varied self-interests.

For a number of reasons, the top-down model of social order now finds itself in retreat.

One cause has been an awareness of the growing inefficacy of large institutions to remain capable of producing the values upon which a society depends for its well-being. Because of their size and bureaucratic sluggishness, institutions tend to become less adaptable to the constancies of change inherent in all living systems. Life is a continuing process of making adjustments and creative responses in a world too complex to be predictable. But institutions insist not only upon their illusions of predictability, but their systems of control by which they imagine they can control the world. This is why institutions have always aligned themselves with the forces of state power, in order to compel the rest of nature -- particularly mankind -- to conform to their interests. But power wars against life, for power seeks to force life to become what it does not choose to be. Because life expresses itself as autonomous and spontaneous individual activity, it is inextricably dependent upon individual liberty. Liberty is the condition in which individuals -- and the societies in which they live -- can remain resilient and creative, adaptive to changing conditions.