Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: hypo  (Read 3901 times)

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: hypo
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2006, 02:06:44 PM »
The initial connection with AA is that if all jobs are equal would there be a need for AA-Or is there something about the law profession in this country that makes it especially  disposed towards AA.  If you look at my look rambling post under the thread "what drives AA", you should be able to figure out the list of questions the hypo aims at.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

redemption

  • Guest
Re: hypo
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2006, 02:14:26 PM »
1. AA is not just about career-consequences.

2. Yes, there is something about law that makes it particularly suitable for AA

This hypo doesn' t help at all, IMO - it just confuses the issue.

Worse, we're suddently talking of the USSR which was not a "communist" country as you mean it, thereby confusing the issue even more.



SCgrad

  • Guest
Re: hypo
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2006, 07:11:26 PM »
yeah, the history lessons were lies upon lies no matter what school you went to.

I don't belive that history lessons or any other lessons were untrue. Objective information was presented in classes, no teacher was saying that horrific events happen becuase of capitalism. Prpaganda was kept out of schools and brought to people through enterntainment. There is no Soviet action film that does not have some type of an evil spy from some capitalist country. Such things, however, were not uncommon in the United States just as well.

I'm sure the schools gave an accurace representation of Stalin  ::)

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: hypo
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2006, 09:23:06 PM »
I have no idea how history was taught in the U.S.S.R., but my guess is that it was taught was a marxist flavor, but that it was not the complete fabrications that you read about in say Orwell's 1984.  The way history is taught in the United States has a very American centric view.  Only recently have school textbooks included information on slavery or native americans or the hardships of the industrial revolution or of America's self-serving foreign policy-but that doesn't mean that what they teach is lies, they just teach it from a pro-american perspective.  I think all history textbooks in schools across the world probably tell the history from a particular vantage pt., but that doesn't mean across the world people are learning lies.

Didn't khrushchev (Stalin's successor) distance himself from Stalin denouncing Stalin's cult of personality and making public a lot of Stalin's worst deeds.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: hypo
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2006, 09:25:00 PM »
1. AA is not just about career-consequences.

2. Yes, there is something about law that makes it particularly suitable for AA

This hypo doesn' t help at all, IMO - it just confuses the issue.

Worse, we're suddently talking of the USSR which was not a "communist" country as you mean it, thereby confusing the issue even more.




Well then if there is "something abou law taht makes it particularly suitable for AA" then the driving force behind AA must be something more than altrustic attitudes, there must be something about law that somehow connects it to social and political forces.  Or maybe not, but thats the question that intrigues me.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

nllsq

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: hypo
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2006, 10:13:44 PM »
(Since nobody responded to my highly opinionated, highly confusing, stream of conscious post (I don't blame you), maybe I can make some of the same points through a hypo)

Imagine we lived in a communist country.  All jobs pay the same.  If one job is more strenous than another job they are compensated by having to work less so that a coal miner would work 1/4th the amount of time as a lawyer and ideally his extra free time would compensate for the tougher nature of the work.  To sum up all jobs are equally desirable.  What role does affirmative action have in such a society?

In a communist country you are directed where to work, based on your specialization (if any) and whether your parents are party members. You have no or little choice. This is how the "AA" works there. Everyone is equal (no need for AA) and at the same time some are more equal than others.
Different jobs do not pay the same. The same jobs, howver pay the same, regardless of the  effort put. As a result workes learn how to imitate work.
Being a lawyer will provide compensation in the terms of knowing the people you need, such as TV repair, plumbing, party members, etc.


Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: hypo
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2006, 04:53:03 PM »
Well since this thread has been hijacked into a Russian thread, I would like to know what literature was read in school. For instance, was Dostoevsky read?

Anything else you think we in the US don't generally know about Russia would also be welcome. I've never taken any Russian classes of any type and I can hardly wait for your input.  :)
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

Ilovecheese

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1361
    • View Profile
Re: hypo
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2006, 09:10:16 PM »
Literature classes were quite nationalistic. A lot of difficult and very interesting stuff was read, but many of great works were read at young age. I remember in 5th grade my class read "Mumu", which is one of the best short stories I have read in my whole life, but at that age I did not understand much of it.
Also, literature was read and discussed in a superficial way only without much interest in the psyche of characters and authors.

I say the largest misrepresentation of the Soviet Union is that people lived awful there. On the contarry people lived wuite well. There was no unemployment, food was cheap, salary was enough to support anyone, every physical need was satisfied by the government.


Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: hypo
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2006, 09:14:11 PM »
So would you say the people failed the system by putting forth little effort at work because they would not receive a raise for merit? In other words was the lack of motivation the main reason it failed? Something else?
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

Ilovecheese

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1361
    • View Profile
Re: hypo
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2006, 10:35:41 PM »
Failure of the system was not due to the general population, but to the international policies of the USSR, especially the weapon race. Soviet Union, howver great and rich it was, could not spend billions of dollars on the weapon race especially since its trade was so limited with very little revenue.
In short, USSR had the money and the conomy to support its citizens and even help some 3rd world countries, but with limited trade it was not able to sponsor its military. And the government felt that the moment that the USA was ahead of the USSR the U.S. would just attack them. So slowly resources from the populus support went into military support and then people became annoyed by the fact that there was no kielbasa in stores.
And even when the Soviet Union was collapsing, the country that had it the worst was Russia.