Contrasting Temple, Drexel and Villanova

[UnbiasedObserver]

I don't think he did. I think he posted it because he wanted to point out to this helicopter parent that it should really be his son doing this research. Even if said helicopter parent already knows that, he (I'm going to go out on a limb here with that one) apparently needs to be reminded.

Reasonable people can disagree on this, but I think he meant to be rude.

Anyhow, I would rather a parent be "overly" (assuming that the OP is being "overly" concerned for the sake of argument) concerned with his children's future than not be concerned enough. 

Of course that's just my personal feelings.  This is, however coming from a person whose last job before coming to law school was trying to fix this very problem....

[dashrashi]

Yes, a helicopter parent is better, overall, for your psyche, than an abusive or absent parent. That's not the comparison at issue here. The comparison is between a normal parent and a helicopter parent. The former is better, especially when it comes to a stage in the child's life when the child, presumably now a legal adult, wants to go to law school.

Perhaps it's possible that he meant to be rude AND he meant to point out that the helicoptering is problematic? or that he meant to be rude IN ORDER to point out that the helicoptering is problematic? Or that he meant to point out that the helicoptering is problematic and it necessarily came out rudely (I tend to think this is the case)? Or that those last two are kind of the same thing so I'm repeating myself?

I don't think uh huh's motive was just to be a dickhead, as the OP implied. It was to inform this person and the board of an opinion which said person and other members of the board are necessarily going to take as dickheaded. Not really uh huh's fault, you know?

[UnbiasedObserver]

Yes, a helicopter parent is better, overall, for your psyche, than an abusive or absent parent. That's not the comparison at issue here. The comparison is between a normal parent and a helicopter parent. The former is better, especially when it comes to a stage in the child's life when the child, presumably now a legal adult, wants to go to law school.

Perhaps it's possible that he meant to be rude AND he meant to point out that the helicoptering is problematic? or that he meant to be rude IN ORDER to point out that the helicoptering is problematic? Or that he meant to point out that the helicoptering is problematic and it necessarily came out rudely (I tend to think this is the case)? Or that those last two are kind of the same thing so I'm repeating myself?

I don't think uh huh's motive was just to be a dickhead, as the OP implied. It was to inform this person and the board of an opinion which said person and other members of the board are necessarily going to take as dickheaded. Not really uh huh's fault, you know?

Well, first, I assumed for the sake of argument that the parent is "overly concerned."  I don't think that asking questions about such a momentous decision in their child's life, which will enable the parent to have enough information to have a meaningful conversation with his/her son, is a bad thing.

We're making a large assumption that this parent is a "helicopter parent," or "domineering," or whatever label we would like to label him/her.

At the same time, I was making an assumption that "uh huh" was being rude.  After perusing recent posts of his, it seems that he might not have meant to be rude.  However, he seems to be assuming the same thing as you are. 

I know that in our culture, we value individuality.  But too many people, even as adults, need some direction. I see this at my law school, being a few years older than my fellow students.  If a parent can't give direction, then who can?  And a parent can't give good direction without good information. 

As you stated though, the OP might've over-reacted.

Personally, I was only concerned because I worry when we attack new posters.  I don't frequent this place much anymore, and I don't want to see it become like xoxo. 

[dashrashi]

I see your point about attacking new posters, and I agree with you in principle. However, when new posters are...eesh, then my qualms, they lessen. I don't know. My qualms can be temperamental.

For the record, I tend to think a parent can be as concerned about their child's law school choices as they want to be. Ask as many questions as you like! Care really really hard! Doing independent research, however, to the point of JOINING AND POSTING ON a message board for law students (read: not their parents), is, to my taste, fundamentally overinvolved, and indeed, helicoptering. *&^%, dude. Your involvement should not extend to doing independent research about your child's law school plans. That's, you know, your kid's arena. Think of it like federal preemption doctrine if you like, and your kid is Congress. You? Are the Maine State Legislature. Some things are just not your domain. Care all you want, yes, but it's not your place to get involved. The OP was asking for advice for his kid--that's something said kid should be doing. Not Dad presenting it to him in a clear plastic report cover, all nice and dossier-ed up.

This is one of Anna Ivey's favorite gongs to bang, and I generally agree with her.

[UnbiasedObserver]

I see your point about attacking new posters, and I agree with you in principle. However, when new posters are...eesh, then my qualms, they lessen. I don't know. My qualms can be temperamental.

It's alright; we can all be temperamental at times.

For the record, I tend to think a parent can be as concerned about their child's law school choices as they want to be. Ask as many questions as you like! Care really really hard! Doing independent research, however, to the point of JOINING AND POSTING ON a message board for law students (read: not their parents), is, to my taste, fundamentally overinvolved, and indeed, helicoptering. poo, dude. Your involvement should not extend to doing independent research about your child's law school plans. That's, you know, your kid's arena. Think of it like federal preemption doctrine if you like, and your kid is Congress. You? Are the Maine State Legislature. Some things are just not your domain. Care all you want, yes, but it's not your place to get involved. The OP was asking for advice for his kid--that's something said kid should be doing. Not Dad presenting it to him in a clear plastic report cover, all nice and dossier-ed up.

Thank you for the analogy; I enjoyed it.   

However, you seem to be assuming that this parent won't just be using this as supplemental information to help his/her son make a decision.  The child may very well be diligently doing his research.  But this is a new era; perhaps his parent is even more "in-tune" with the 'net  than the son.  Two heads are better than one (at least sometimes).

Also, I think that if we are not going to judge "uh huh's" OP harshly, we shouldn't judge the OP's response harshly either.  As far as message boards go, both of them were civil, to be fair.   

That's just something to think about. 

This is one of Anna Ivey's favorite gongs to bang, and I generally agree with her.

Yeah, I know it is.  And I agree with her and you in principle.  We might differ as to when the principle applies, however.   

[MichaelNKat]

Some of the ongoing comments about the presumed reasons, purposes, motivation and intent of my original post, which was nothing more than an inquiry about a subject directed to a population reasonably assumed to be in a position to respond with current and insightful information, reflect a continued lack of civility and professional congeniality that has become of increasing concern in the legal profession. You will find, once you are out in the real world, that there is little patience among both the bench and bar for the kinds of attitudes and behaviors reflected by some of the posts here. So as to put an end to further speculation, note as follows:

1. My comments about uh huh's reply 7 were correct. There was a hostile and intentionally rude subtext that I correctly perceived. Uh huh's subsequent comments bear this out.

2. The continued comments about helicopter parenting are presumptuous and ill-informed. The use of a label of convenience as a substitute for sound and substantiated analysis and judgment reflects immature thought. To "set the record straight", my son is engaging in his own investigation and due diligence. My original post made that clear. He and I have a relationship based on mutual respect, among other values. Over the past 5 years, with my encouragement, he has lived independently, attending college while working to pay for his own living expenses and performing as the co-founder of a touring band. He and I engage in a broad range of discussions, including his educational plans, with mutual respect for divergent views where they exist. He has no problem with me engaging in my own independent investigation and due diligence about his law school options. He appreciates that it enables me to bring an added perspective to his decision making process and also agrees that as a financial investor in his education it makes sense for both of us that I do so. He doesn't feel threatened or undermined by this. The fact that some posters on this board object so vociferously to my doing so is reflective of their own limitations as fully developed adults and perhaps of the defects or limitations in their relationships with their own parents. Perhaps they are engaging in what psychiatrists used to call Freudian Projection.

3. To attempt to justify plain old rudeness and hostile judgmental behavior by insinuating that it is the norm for the legal profession and to suggest that what was encountered here pales by comparison, as uh huh does, is ridiculous. It would also be laughable but for the sad commentary about professional civility and collegiality which it reflects. And no, I am not naive or uninformed in this regard nor is my son. I happen to be an attorney and am the managing partner of my firm. Over the past 30 years, I have litigated or argued cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts in multiple jurisdictions as well as a broad variety of state and federal administrative agencies. My son has worked for the last 9 months as a law clerk for a criminal defense attorney with a very active state and federal practice and regularly interfaces with attorneys from the US Attorneys office, DA's office and local and federal defenders associations. To use the vernacular of dashrashi, nobody has much tolerance for a "dickhead" and "dickheaded" behavior is given short shrift by both attorneys and judges.

4. I came to this board at the suggestion of another attorney with whom I was chatting on another educational board that contains forums on a broad variety of undergraduate and graduate educational topics. It was suggested that this board could be a good resource to obtain insight from students currently in or recently graduated from law school. The other board is welcoming of students, parents and professionals all of whom add to the richness of the discussion. dashrashi, your suggestion that somehow the "temerity" of a parent posting here was "inappropriate" is narrow minded to say the least and suggestive of smug, snotty elitism. And in the final analysis, it serves only to chill the involvement of those who could be a valuable resource for young professionals as they weave their way through law school into the real world.

So, in closing, for those who responded substantively to my inquiries, thank you for for your thoughts, insights and perspectives. To uh huh and dasrashi, if I were a doctor, I would suggest that your rudeness and judgmental words and thoughts reflect that you are suffering from an unfortunately common condition often diagnosed as Cranial Rectal Intromission. Oh, and in case any one was wondering, that was rude - and unapologetically so.         

[dashrashi]

Seriously? I feel so bad for your kid.

[uh huh.]

To uh huh and dasrashi, if I were a doctor, I would suggest that your rudeness and judgmental words and thoughts reflect that you are suffering from an unfortunately common condition often diagnosed as Cranial Rectal Intromission. Oh, and in case any one was wondering, that was rude - and unapologetically so.         

That's the spirit! FYI, MichaelNKat - there are certain scholars that believe that "civility and professional conggeniality" constitute legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, and are leading to the deterioration of the profession. Of course, you and your son will learn that when you both attend law school.

[x]

I agree with you 100% MichaelNKat.  I learned a long time ago to apply the old 80/20 rule.   20% of the people on this board give 80% of the excellent/good advice and are
there to help you.   The other 80% you should learn to ignore.

It does no good to verbally assault them as they have nothing better to do than to
"Put you down".  They thrive on this as it is the only way they have of feeding their ego.   

Just ignore them and move on to those that are there to help.

[cbruce76]

Getting back to the original question posed, I chose Drexel because I felt comfortable there and I sincerely believed that I would have more support from the faculty, administration and staff.  I came to this conclusion by reasoning that the school's success depends upon the success of the students in Philadelphia and beyond.  Schools with a tradition of success can rest on their laurels at times.

I can't speak to the atmosphere at Villanova or Temple because I didn't even apply to those schools.  My sense is that they are both well respected, but that's all I know (I'm from a different geographic region).  I had much safer options, but cost was a big factor for me because I'm paying for school myself.

I will agree with the earlier comments that refer to the newness of Drexel and the fact that it cannot match the alum network of the other schools in the area, but I disagree with the notion that Drexel is a "T4" school.  The jury is not in yet on where Drexel will eventually become ranked.