Law School Discussion

1 year later....still glad u went to law school?

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #570 on: May 27, 2009, 11:24:45 AM »
I'm actually 2 years out from law school and yes, I'm glad I went. I enjoy my litigation position. I like depositions, trials, motion hearings and arbitration hearings. I love to argue. Best of all, I get along with most of my adversaries.

Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #571 on: May 28, 2009, 10:54:13 AM »
Did anyone go to law school after working for several years, or in other words, as an adult over the age of 30?  What was it that made you say, hey, I think I'll go to law school.

Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #572 on: May 30, 2009, 11:51:00 AM »
Since this thread might just get back on topic sometime soon I figured I'd sign up and post here. I finished my 1L year and I can't imagine any chain of unfortunate events that would result in me going back. From the first day to the last I found the material tedious, boring, and unrewarding, with the sole exceptions of criminal law and civil procedure. My highest grades were in LRW, but knowing just how much of my career would involve research and writing is enough to tip the balance to where I wouldn't consider going back. To make matters worse, I felt nothing but dread looking through the course catalog signing up for the fall, and when my grades for this past semester came in I had absolutely no interest in whether I did well or not.

In other words, while I was never glad I went to law school, now that a year of it is behind me I certainly wish I had never wasted my time on it. And to anyone who's considering quitting, don't let the loans stop you. Thinking the debt justifies spending more time and money is the same as betting more and more at a casino in hopes of making back what you've lost. You'll lose less if you cut and run with some debt and the knowledge that you avoided something you didn't want to do rather than accumulating more debt and working a job you hate.

M_Cool

  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #573 on: May 30, 2009, 03:16:06 PM »
Wait, of all the classes you took you thought Civ Pro was the one that WASN'T tedious and boring? 

Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #574 on: May 30, 2009, 03:27:25 PM »
Oh yeah. Only one I genuinely liked. It was my highest grade after LRW. I hated every moment of every other class, and goddamn was conlaw the most excruciating thing I've ever studied, but civpro was actually kinda fun.

Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #575 on: June 03, 2009, 07:42:07 AM »

[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies.

[...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.


In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
 

Don't you think this analysis is a little outdated by now?


What exactly are you trying to say, I Love?!

Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #576 on: September 10, 2010, 11:10:25 AM »

[...] Just look at the statistics on job-related depression. Law is #1 by far. A majority of lawyers say they wish they had gone into something else. [...]

[...] I don't care much about money, status, etc. I enjoy interacting with people in a more personal way. [...]


One'd have to figure out for oneself whether this is just as important as that, or that is just as important as this ..


Any answers as to this out there?!

Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #577 on: September 25, 2010, 12:32:58 PM »

Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism.


Could you expand a bit?

Re: Plasmids
« Reply #578 on: September 27, 2010, 11:36:23 AM »

There is no Santa Claus. I'm Santa Claus.


Hahaha! You're so funny Walter! ;)

Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #579 on: September 27, 2010, 11:53:26 AM »

[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies.

[...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.


In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
 

Don't you think this analysis is a little outdated by now?


What exactly do you mean, I Love?