This thread is an absolute crack up. I keep muttering in my head "f'n lawyers"...
Lawdog, you sound like all the j-off attorneys I've watched spew BS about the silliest things. "Quid pro quo with the LSAC"..HAHA!! You're gonna fit it in just fine at the courthouse. I find it scary that you actually think you're right.
I'm starting to think I'm too moral for this law stuff..
The funniest thing is that the OP stopped posting after like the first page or two..and the discussion rages on. I think you guys almost have it figured out..
Yeah, we jacked his post. But now you're part of the robbery. And why would the guy want to read ppl repeatedly saying he f*cked up? Look...quid pro quo is just jargon, dude, and I did kind of use it for comedy (it means trade-off in layman's terms). I notice people have not been able to substantively attack my arguments. They talk about me and say I don't make sense but they produce no evidence to back up their remarks. And they won't...just like you won't. This post is an important one b/c some 0L's seem to have the wrong mindset going into law school. They have to be truly open to multiple points of view.
And the real law students on the post have validated at least a good portion of what I have said.
Lawdog, you misunderstood me. I know perfectly well what quid pro quo means. It means "this for that", and I found it nothing less than asinine that you would suggest it as an opportunity for some kind of negotiation with the LSAC. To me, it's not quite acknowledging the poor judgment that was exhibited by the OP.
But thus is the practice of law, if thats what you're trying to get at with your "multiple view" thing. Listen, I spent many hours in court in the last year, and I've seen some pretty sad arguments. I've thought to myself..how can I knowingly spew BS to a judge or to a jury..or bring up some crazy hypothetical, when I know in my heart and head that it's BS. For me, it's a difficult thing to do. For others, they dont mind.