Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Which School to Attend?  (Read 8478 times)

blackpowerman

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #60 on: March 29, 2008, 11:55:18 PM »
i haven't read all the posts- but capital?  are u serious?  and thats a scholarship only for the first year-

anyways, ready the case pyeate v pyeate (i'm pretty sure thats how its spelled)  I got called on for contracts for this case and it was really interesting.  seems like you could potentially find yourself in the same situation.

be careful haha. 
"The fox knows many tricks; the hedgehog one good one" - Archilochus

PSUDSL08

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
    • LS #'s
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #61 on: March 31, 2008, 12:05:22 AM »
OP,

I attended Capital for a year before transferring to my T2 school. My GPA and class rank at my T2 are both higher than they were at Capital. If keeping a scholarship is your major concern, I wouldn't bank on the fact that it will be there after your first year. A good chunk of the students at CULS were very competitive, and I wouldn't assume (not that you are) that since your LSAT will be higher than most entering students, that this will translate to a similar class rank. I knew people in the 75th percentile for entering LSAT scores that dropped out and those in the bottom 25th percentile who were in the top 1/3 of the class.

Like someone predicted, the curve there was a 2.7...so if you have one "average" semester there, that could be enough for them to pull your scholarship. Then you're stuck in Columbus PAYING private tuition for a purely local degree that will not translate to a job in CA. If you have any questions about Capital itself, feel free to message me. Otherwise, my advice to you is to either (1) wait another year and apply to a wider variety of schools or (2) pick a school in a location where you can see yourself living for the distant future.


hotel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #62 on: April 03, 2008, 09:37:07 AM »

[...] Just make sure you know that for many of your indicators of successful T3/T4 lawyers, there may have been many years of no cable, Chef Boyardee, and worn-out shoes. [...]


Worn-out shoes? I don't believe one'd be so oblivious to oneself as not to get a proper pair of shoes! And if you don't you'll be scornfully looked down upon like you're a dog by this woman



Remember Imelda Marcos? Her collection of shoes once captured the world's imagination. Marcos is unapologetic about the shoes. She is proud of an advertisement for an American shoe company that says: "There's a little Imelda in all of us."

becky

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #63 on: April 03, 2008, 01:35:13 PM »

Worn-out shoes? I don't believe one'd be so oblivious to oneself as not to get a proper pair of shoes! And if you don't you'll be scornfully looked down upon like you're a dog by this woman



Remember Imelda Marcos? Her collection of shoes once captured the world's imagination. Marcos is unapologetic about the shoes. She is proud of an advertisement for an American shoe company that says: "There's a little Imelda in all of us."


There's no denying the shoe's place in popular culture. They inspired the title of a recent film, "In Her Shoes," starring Cameron Diaz and Toni Collette. They figured prominently in the television show "Sex and the City" whereby millions of women suddenly became aware — and desirous — of Manolo Blahniks, shoes that could easily cost more than your monthly mortgage. And who could forget when Imelda Marcos' collection of thousands of pairs of shoes came to symbolize the cruel and backwards rule of her husband over the Philippines, a country of people more accustomed to overwhelming poverty than luxury footwear. So, what belies this shoe obsession? While it might be tempting to turn toward a Freudian view of shoes — seeing the particularly pointy stiletto-style pumps as some sort of phallic symbol, whereby donning them, woman can reduce the inevitable "penis envy" that so consumes them according to the theory — this would be far-fetched.

Actually, I don't think it is that far off.

Shoes can signal power, and they certainly have something to do with sexuality. Consider the power that comes with wearing high heels. They add inches of height — as much 2 or 3 inches. Chimps and other animals' hair stands up when they are in the throws of a dominance show. Humans have largely lost this ability to instantly look more bad ass when the situation calls for it. Instead, women can use high heals. Afterall, people still ascribe higher status, dominance, and even income to people who are bigger — specifically taller. If men gain power and influence with their height (41 of the past 42 winners of the U. S. Presidential race have been the taller of the two candidates) who's to say women don't gain power when they elevate their height with high heels? They also make noise - a ton of noise. Primates, like other animals, make a raucous display when they compete for power. Shoes do this for women. While all of this explains the obsession behind high-heeled shoes, it does little to explain why some women must have so many of them. For that, you'd blame the conspicuous consumption that pervades America and leaves us falsely believing our possessions indicate our self-worth.

motel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #64 on: April 28, 2008, 01:07:06 PM »

She is proud of an advertisement for an American shoe company that says: "There's a little Imelda in all of us."


Who wouldn't be proud of that?! :)

nealric

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2261
  • a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez
    • View Profile
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #65 on: April 28, 2008, 05:09:29 PM »
I've always found it rather amusing how women are often obsessed with shoes, but they are always the very LAST thing most men notice on a woman (unless they are outrageous)...

Or if they are reckless or ultrahazardous.

Gahhhh

Torts

GET OUT OF MY HEAD !!!!11!!!!111!!
Georgetown Law Graduate

Chief justice Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Now who's being naive?

Shellby117

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #66 on: April 28, 2008, 05:28:06 PM »
I've always found it rather amusing how women are often obsessed with shoes

Women are obsessed with shoes because no matter how much weight you gain, they always fit and always look good
"No one lays on his deathbed wishing he had spent more time at the office"

byraze

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #67 on: May 07, 2008, 05:45:08 PM »

Worn-out shoes? I don't believe one'd be so oblivious to oneself as not to get a proper pair of shoes! And if you don't you'll be scornfully looked down upon like you're a dog by this woman



Remember Imelda Marcos? Her collection of shoes once captured the world's imagination. Marcos is unapologetic about the shoes. She is proud of an advertisement for an American shoe company that says: "There's a little Imelda in all of us."


Hahaha -- you're so f-ing funny, hotel! I owe you a beer for that!

small talk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #68 on: August 28, 2008, 09:48:25 PM »
Did Imelda have some kind of foot fetish? Shoe fetishism, whatever is called (although fetishes are rarely ascribed to women!)?

manypulate

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Which School to Attend?
« Reply #69 on: October 09, 2008, 10:25:35 PM »
For some reason one of the most commonly ridiculed of the paraphilias is that of podophilia: a sexual fixation with the foot. Foot fetishism is extremely common; enough that one could argue that it should be considered a sexual norm rather than a paraphilia. Feet are a part of the human body; it's not really any different from someone obsessing over a person's breasts or arse cheeks. One of my friends has an obsession with men's forearms. Don't follow it myself, but then I don't question it either. Possibly the reason that it's considered to be such an amusing fetish is because of people's experience of feet: sweaty, smelly, verruca and corn encrusted, dirt caked, fungus-infested feet. Mmm. How could you resist? Well, some people can't. Foot fetishism is an extremely varied preoccupation: some people just go doolally over the sight of a bare foot; for others it's the sight of a foot in stockings and high heels; still others find that licking or sucking a foot is the turn on; and the foot equivalent of a hand job makes certain people swoon with desire. There are probably as many fetish variants as there are fetishists; the three commonest forms of podophilia are foot licking, foot worship and foot tickling. One of variant that amuses me is the concept of 'toe cleavage', a term used to describe the small amount of toe space seen poking out from what is, for want of a better term, the top of a low-cut shoe. Looks like I've spent the majority of my life flaunting the wrong bit of cleavages.

The theoretical psychology of fetish formation is complicated, interesting, and far too long for me to write up here. Suffice to say that there are a lot of interplaying factors that lead to someone focusing their sexual (in)discretions on an object/item/body part. Freud postulated that podophilia was a result of the foot's passing resemblance to a phallus. Freud was also a cokehead who had unresolved issues with regards to his mother. Of course, some do make the comparison between the curves of a foot and the curves of a woman's body, so who knows, there may be something in it. A psychiatry lecture that I attended on the subject of gender and sexuality suggested that some fetishes are the result of the Pavlovian theory of classical conditioning (with maybe a dash of reinforcement behaviour thrown in for good measure). If you were exposed over time to an object whilst independently experiencing a sexual response, then in the same way a dog salivates at the sound of a bell, you'd become turned on by that object, despite the absence of the original sexual stimulation. The lecturer summed it up with this (paraphrased) closer:

Quote
"A fetish can be formed about practically anything. Take, for instance, this overhead projector. If you were to think about this overhead projector while you were being sexually aroused, eventually there would come a time where you'd become aroused simply by thinking about the overhead projector."


All I know is that I've never looked at overhead projectors in quite the same light since. Still, lectures are now a hell of a lot more enjoyable, I'll tell you that much. The renowned neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, an expert on phantom limbs, has also postulated an anatomical theory as to why some find the foot to be a source of carnal desire. He was first alerted to this idea when he received a telephone call from a young lady who'd lost her lower left leg in a farming accident. She had contacted him after reading a clinical paper he'd published on a young gentleman, Tom, who'd been experiencing phantom limb pain after a car accident that'd resulted in the loss of his left forearm. The paper documented the phenomenon of sensory remapping in the brain; if Tom's left cheek was stroked, he simultaneously experienced the sensation on both his left cheek AND in his missing left hand. Sound far-fetched?

Famous foot fetishists

Shigeru Miyamoto
Jack Black
Charles Pierre Baudelaire
David Boreanaz
Brooke Burke
Luis Bu๑uel
Casanova
Keith Caputo
Damon Dash
Snitsky
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Shay Haley
Thomas Hardy
Enrique Iglesias
Tommy Lee
Quentin Tarantino
Jay Leno
Ludacris
Ricky Martin
George du Maurier
Eddie Murphy
P Diddy
Pharrell
Elvis Presley
Redman
Charlie Sheen
Christian Slater
Andy Warhol
Simon Webbe 
My aunt gave me a walkie-talkie for my birthday. She says if I'm good, she'll give me the other one next year.