Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

«‹›1550 »

atlas of bugs: Aug 19, 2003; BOOTSTRAPPING
MILLIONAIRE
ONE-PERCENTER

SlyFrog posted:

Why not max out those loans, if someone else is paying for it? I've already read some internet posts from people who have essentially said, "Sure I took more loans than I needed to in order to live a better life in law school - what's the difference between $100k and $150k when IBR is paying it back?"

yeah that was me, I said that, today

Because it's true and if our system is horrifically broken I'm not going to be the only one not picking up the scraps

# ? Aug 21, 2011 19:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 05:02

atlas of bugs: Aug 19, 2003; BOOTSTRAPPING
MILLIONAIRE
ONE-PERCENTER

"[expletive], I'm IBR-paid."

--Me, in a club, poppin bottles last night

# ? Aug 21, 2011 19:02

GamingOdor: Jun 8, 2001; The stench of chips.

atlas of bugs posted:

"[expletive], I'm IBR-paid."

--Me, in a club, poppin bottles last night

$150k and what do you get? One day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don't you call me cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the IBR plan.

# ? Aug 21, 2011 19:39

holylemon: May 24, 2004; Dude, have you ever touched a dolphin?; Fun Shoe

Lilosh posted:

Our school has a rule where the top 16 GPAs (top 8%ish) automatically grade-on to law review unless their writing competition entry is scored in the bottom third of all entries. Then the top 12 or 14 top entries from the competition are offered a spot. Then the remaining 12-14 slots are offered to people whose combination (GPA + writing competition) scores are the best of those remaining. It's an amorphous black-box process that comes off as confusing and arbitrary.

I know a couple of people above the top 10% cutoff who were phenomenal writers, booked their LRW class, wrote onto a competitive writing-based extracurricular, and were chosen to be TAs for LRW next year, and yet didn't make it onto law review. There's a lot of people, including me, who seem to be hearing a ton of "poo poo, How the hell aren't you on LR?"

While this sucks for you, it's annoying that people always point to the process as the reason they're not on law review. How is the system you described a "black box" when you know exactly which criteria determine the outcome? And why is that system arbitrary? Because it invites people based on more than one criteria?

Good writers may still write poor competition entries (and often do). If these people are as good as you say, their writing comp score alone should have been enough to qualify them, and if not that, then certainly their GPA+score would... unless they wrote a lovely entry. Maybe there are a few instances where a person got screwed by harsh graders, but that problem is basically solved by having a sufficient number of people grade each entry. I have administered a system very similar to the one you described, and really do believe that anyone who "fell through the cracks" did so because their entry wasn't good enough. I think this not because of some need to believe that our system is perfect (it isn't), but because I was curious and read the relevant entries.

Anyway, I don't know what happened in your situation. Maybe you wrote something awesome and got screwed. But I wanted to reply to your post because the general sentiment highlights one of the things I hate most about law school: so many people think they're special and that if they don't get what they want, it's because the system is somehow responsible. The individual is never responsible! (I'm not really talking about jobs because there, the system really is the problem most of the time.) I've had to have multiple conversations with people who thought they were special snowflakes who deserved to be on law review and who then got pissed at me when I told them I wasn't going to make an exception for them, so your post hit particularly close to home. This post isn't meant as a personal attack, though - I won't pretend to know whether you fit into the category of people I just described.

# ? Aug 21, 2011 19:51

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

atlas of bugs posted:

"[expletive], I'm IBR-paid."

--Me, in a club, poppin bottles last night

Yo, we need to have Parsons chat soon now that bootcamp is over. Be in the channel sometime.

# ? Aug 21, 2011 22:46

Linguica: Jul 13, 2000; You're already dead

quick we need to introduce "IBR queens" into the political lexicon

# ? Aug 21, 2011 22:47

prussian advisor: Jan 15, 2007; The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, its going to roll over my dead body.

SlyFrog posted:

I admit that IBR disgusts me a little. I'm not raging at people who take it, but the program is a bit gross in some of its incarnations. If I'm trying to be good and view the program charitably, the best way I can look at it is that we're essentially giving people in the military, government jobs, etc. some additional hidden salary for 10 years to offset their lower wages. (Except that anymore, I'm not sure that the average government attorney really has a lower salary than the average private sector attorney.)

If by "some hidden salary," you mean "the ability to work in these sectors at all" or "having a practical route out of an otherwise unavoidable lifetime of debt enslavement," sure, I guess.

It's funny that you single out students opting to borrow an extra $1000 for a computer that they otherwise might not or some poo poo as a "moral hazard" when the explosion of university tuition rates and the rise of an entire for-profit sector of scam schools is a consequence of the worst and most egregious moral hazard in the entire realm of education.

The parties whose behaviors are to blame for this are the schools themselves, not the students. Not to mention, if you think that there's any doubt that pubic sector attorneys (most of whom are not federal agency attorneys) are more poorly-compensated than their (employed) private-sector counterparts, you're sorely in need of some perspective.

# ? Aug 21, 2011 22:59

MaximumBob: Jan 15, 2006; You're moving who to the bullpen?

e: never mind

MaximumBob fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Aug 21, 2011

# ? Aug 21, 2011 23:06

prussian advisor: Jan 15, 2007; The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, its going to roll over my dead body.

prussian advisor posted:

any doubt that pubic sector attorneys

Ok I take back my previous post, no incentives are necessary to work in the pubic sector :lol:

# ? Aug 21, 2011 23:18

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

prussian advisor posted:

If by "some hidden salary," you mean "the ability to work in these sectors at all" or "having a practical route out of an otherwise unavoidable lifetime of debt enslavement," sure, I guess.

It's funny that you single out students opting to borrow an extra $1000 for a computer that they otherwise might not or some poo poo as a "moral hazard" when the explosion of university tuition rates and the rise of an entire for-profit sector of scam schools is a consequence of the worst and most egregious moral hazard in the entire realm of education.

The parties whose behaviors are to blame for this are the schools themselves, not the students. Not to mention, if you think that there's any doubt that pubic sector attorneys (most of whom are not federal agency attorneys) are more poorly-compensated than their (employed) private-sector counterparts, you're sorely in need of some perspective.

Shut up poor.

(Oh and as DA, you'll need to get used to saying that without dying inside.)

# ? Aug 21, 2011 23:30

prussian advisor: Jan 15, 2007; The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, its going to roll over my dead body.

nm posted:

(Oh and as DA, you'll need to get used to saying that without dying inside.)

Uh the ethical rules prohibit me from directly communicating with represented criminal defendants.

Also drop by #lawgoons more imo since your a cool bro

# ? Aug 22, 2011 00:13

Solomon Grundy: Feb 10, 2007; Born on a Monday

Unamuno posted:

So, how do y'all deal with the non-stop regret and self-loathing borne of knowing you ruined your life by going to law school? How do you learn to trust yourself again after having it great and, ignoring all the well-reasoned advice at your disposal, choosing to throw it all away?

You buy a boat. A big loving boat. Then you invite friends and clients to the lakehouse for a weekend of impressing them with your big loving boat, and the motor won't start and you are left swimming from the dock, bathing in even more self-loathing.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 03:02

SlyFrog: May 16, 2007; What? One name? Who are you, Seal?

prussian advisor posted:

If by "some hidden salary," you mean "the ability to work in these sectors at all" or "having a practical route out of an otherwise unavoidable lifetime of debt enslavement," sure, I guess.

It's funny that you single out students opting to borrow an extra $1000 for a computer that they otherwise might not or some poo poo as a "moral hazard" when the explosion of university tuition rates and the rise of an entire for-profit sector of scam schools is a consequence of the worst and most egregious moral hazard in the entire realm of education.

The parties whose behaviors are to blame for this are the schools themselves, not the students. Not to mention, if you think that there's any doubt that pubic sector attorneys (most of whom are not federal agency attorneys) are more poorly-compensated than their (employed) private-sector counterparts, you're sorely in need of some perspective.

I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote. In any event, I'll spare you the trouble of a SUPERLATIVE FILLED, HOW DARE YOU NOT FIGHT THE MAN, IT'S THE SYSTEM THAT MAKES US DO THIS response back from me.

SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Aug 22, 2011

# ? Aug 22, 2011 03:41

Anthropolis: Jun 9, 2002

Now I hear grumblings, but has anyone done a thoughtful policy analysis of the chances of the 10-year loan forgiveness coming through? I'm no expert, but I would guess there is no political or legal recourse whatsoever if this program gets defunded 9 years from now.

Yet every time the subject comes up online, you get half-witted 1Ls saying things like "We're relying on this program. R2d of Contract � 90, ever heard of it? :smug:

# ? Aug 22, 2011 03:54

Sulecrist: Apr 5, 2007; Better tear off this bar association logo.

Anthropolis posted:

Now I hear grumblings, but has anyone done a thoughtful policy analysis of the chances of the 10-year loan forgiveness coming through? I'm no expert, but I would guess there is no political or legal recourse whatsoever if this program gets defunded 9 years from now.

Yet every time the subject comes up online, you get half-witted 1Ls saying things like "We're relying on this program. R2d of Contract � 90, ever heard of it?

negligent infliction of emotional distress

EDIT: There is nothing anyone could do to get the money.

Sulecrist fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Aug 22, 2011

# ? Aug 22, 2011 03:59

atlas of bugs: Aug 19, 2003; BOOTSTRAPPING
MILLIONAIRE
ONE-PERCENTER

prussian advisor posted:

If by "some hidden salary," you mean "the ability to work in these sectors at all" or "having a practical route out of an otherwise unavoidable lifetime of debt enslavement," sure, I guess.

It's funny that you single out students opting to borrow an extra $1000 for a computer that they otherwise might not or some poo poo as a "moral hazard" when the explosion of university tuition rates and the rise of an entire for-profit sector of scam schools is a consequence of the worst and most egregious moral hazard in the entire realm of education.

The parties whose behaviors are to blame for this are the schools themselves, not the students. Not to mention, if you think that there's any doubt that pubic sector attorneys (most of whom are not federal agency attorneys) are more poorly-compensated than their (employed) private-sector counterparts, you're sorely in need of some perspective.

prussian is dumb as heck but somehow he was right about this

# ? Aug 22, 2011 04:58

Konstantin: Jun 20, 2005; And the Lord said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

If the shrinking of the middle class is a long-term thing, then the government will be stuck with a huge bill once IBR loans become eligible for forgiveness. The general assumption seems to be that most IBR recipients will eventually get to the level of income where they can repay their loans after economic conditions improve, but I seriously doubt this is the case.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 10:56

J Miracle: Mar 25, 2010; It took 32 years, but I finally figured out push-ups!

I don't worry about what happens if there's no PSLF or if IBR gets cancelled, because really if poo poo is that bad I'll just be a tiny drop in a sea of defaults and the government will just have to settle for pennies on the dollar like every other judgment creditor.

EDIT: cuz I'm morally bankrupt

# ? Aug 22, 2011 12:04

Defleshed: Nov 18, 2004; F is for... FREEDOM

SlyFrog posted:

I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote. In any event, I'll spare you the trouble of a SUPERLATIVE FILLED, HOW DARE YOU NOT FIGHT THE MAN, IT'S THE SYSTEM THAT MAKES US DO THIS response back from me.

I dunno, I read what you wrote and it came off smug as gently caress and I think his reply was pretty spot on. :shobon:

# ? Aug 22, 2011 12:24

Kase Im Licht: Jan 26, 2001

prussian advisor posted:

If by "some hidden salary," you mean "the ability to work in these sectors at all" or "having a practical route out of an otherwise unavoidable lifetime of debt enslavement," sure, I guess.

It's funny that you single out students opting to borrow an extra $1000 for a computer that they otherwise might not or some poo poo as a "moral hazard" when the explosion of university tuition rates and the rise of an entire for-profit sector of scam schools is a consequence of the worst and most egregious moral hazard in the entire realm of education.

The parties whose behaviors are to blame for this are the schools themselves, not the students. Not to mention, if you think that there's any doubt that pubic sector attorneys (most of whom are not federal agency attorneys) are more poorly-compensated than their (employed) private-sector counterparts, you're sorely in need of some perspective.

I must have forgotten about how we didn't have any government or non-profit attorneys before IBR. I doubt the public sector averages more than the private, but there are tons of government attorneys making more than private-sector attorneys.

Students aren't forced to pay law school tuition, they choose to pay it. They have other options, like cheaper schools or not going at all, yet they continue to pay the stupid prices. If someone wants to overpay for your product, why wouldn't you keep raising prices? Trying to blame this all on the schools isn't going to be productive and will do little to slow the rise in tuition. Sure, kill US News and get everyone to realize law school professors are overpaid and mostly useless, but the schools will keep raising prices, because they CAN, because students will pay it, and a lot of that has to do with the Fed's involvement in student loans, including IBR.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 13:53

Abugadu: Jul 12, 2004; 1st Sgt. Matthews and the men have Procured for me a cummerbund from a traveling gypsy, who screeched Victory shall come at a Terrible price. i am Honored.

Kase Im Licht posted:

I must have forgotten about how we didn't have any government or non-profit attorneys before IBR. I doubt the public sector averages more than the private, but there are tons of government attorneys making more than private-sector attorneys.

Students aren't forced to pay law school tuition, they choose to pay it. They have other options, like cheaper schools or not going at all, yet they continue to pay the stupid prices. If someone wants to overpay for your product, why wouldn't you keep raising prices? Trying to blame this all on the schools isn't going to be productive and will do little to slow the rise in tuition. Sure, kill US News and get everyone to realize law school professors are overpaid and mostly useless, but the schools will keep raising prices, because they CAN, because students will pay it, and a lot of that has to do with the Fed's involvement in student loans, including IBR.

I get the basic argument you're making, that demand is irrationally high, thus prices = high. But the problem is that the irrationality is fostered by schools that advertise false employment rates, false salary averages, and false firm ties, exacerbated by a bad economy, and warnings aren't getting through to people because they're drowned out.

It's become a pyramid scheme, and blaming the people who are falling for the pyramid's bottom tier isn't doing much good right now, especially when they're socially malajusted 'special snowflakes' who have been told all their lives that all they need to do is be the top in whatever class they're in and they'll be rewarded handsomely. Eventually class ends, and you're left with a 'sperging academic Conqueror with a summa cum laude in one hand, a dick in the other, no job, and $150k+ in debt. And the common answer to that is 'well go hang your shingle' because that's so easy to do with the complete lack of substantive training that law school provides, and the 2-3 years of operating in the red that solo usually incurs, which totally is doable with collection agencies making GBS threads down your neck.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 14:58

SlyFrog: May 16, 2007; What? One name? Who are you, Seal?

Defleshed posted:

I dunno, I read what you wrote and it came off smug as gently caress and I think his reply was pretty spot on.

What's smug about it? Tuition is ridiculous and the law school system is a giant scam, so the solution is to have everyone pay for the giant scam? So the government can now subsidize the giant scam. I think that's a pretty loving stupid solution.

If people had read what I wrote instead of insecurely launching from their platform of poor, oppressed law student, you'd have realized that my problem was that it doesn't solve, but instead subsidizes, a lovely system. It keeps funneling people into a system where there are already too many attorneys. Now people can go and rack up huge debt for the lottery ticket chance of a BigLaw job and if they fail at that, the public can pay for the lottery ticket.

And yes, there is moral hazard involved. I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to pay for your $1,000 computer that you really didn't need. And you know drat well that's a strawman in the first place - I can probably live with your in reality $2,500 Alienware "law school computer" that's really needed to play Bad Company 2, but I don't think the public needs to subsidize people taking another $50k in student loans spent on personal small luxuries because, "Hey, it all gets paid back by the government anyway."

That's why I said I try to look charitably at it. I don't really believe in, "It costs so much, I'm owed a law school education, so someone else should pay this." Instead, the positive spin I can put on it is that it really amounts to subsidizing a low government/nonprofit salary for 10 years, essentially bringing that salary more in line with what those positions should be paid based on private sector comparables. Stated another way, it's the government's way of indirectly juicing salaries for certain government/nonprofit jobs (just that the government effectively immediately deducts that additional salary and pays itself back over 10 years).

SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Aug 22, 2011

# ? Aug 22, 2011 15:19

Elephanthead: Sep 11, 2008; Toilet Rascal

Just wait until they graduate and your insurance premiums pay for their hookers and blow when they would have saved some money by snorting koolaid off a fat waitresses rear end.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 15:33

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

I bought a badass computer so I could play Battlefield 1942 maxed out. But it was with private loans.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 16:04

Tetrix: Aug 24, 2002

Phil Moscowitz posted:

I bought a badass computer so I could play Battlefield 1942 maxed out. But it was with private loans.

bombing some nazis at el alamein makes it all worth it

# ? Aug 22, 2011 16:40

atlas of bugs: Aug 19, 2003; BOOTSTRAPPING
MILLIONAIRE
ONE-PERCENTER

SlyFrog posted:

What's smug about it? Tuition is ridiculous and the law school system is a giant scam, so the solution is to have everyone pay for the giant scam? So the government can now subsidize the giant scam. I think that's a pretty loving stupid solution.

If people had read what I wrote instead of insecurely launching from their platform of poor, oppressed law student, you'd have realized that my problem was that it doesn't solve, but instead subsidizes, a lovely system. It keeps funneling people into a system where there are already too many attorneys. Now people can go and rack up huge debt for the lottery ticket chance of a BigLaw job and if they fail at that, the public can pay for the lottery ticket.

And yes, there is moral hazard involved. I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to pay for your $1,000 computer that you really didn't need. And you know drat well that's a strawman in the first place - I can probably live with your in reality $2,500 Alienware "law school computer" that's really needed to play Bad Company 2, but I don't think the public needs to subsidize people taking another $50k in student loans spent on personal small luxuries because, "Hey, it all gets paid back by the government anyway."

That's why I said I try to look charitably at it. I don't really believe in, "It costs so much, I'm owed a law school education, so someone else should pay this." Instead, the positive spin I can put on it is that it really amounts to subsidizing a low government/nonprofit salary for 10 years, essentially bringing that salary more in line with what those positions should be paid based on private sector comparables. Stated another way, it's the government's way of indirectly juicing salaries for certain government/nonprofit jobs (just that the government effectively immediately deducts that additional salary and pays itself back over 10 years).

that's a cool post, definitely gonna reread it while I literally summer in France on my IBR money

# ? Aug 22, 2011 17:18

KaiserSchnitzel: Feb 23, 2003; Hey baby I think we Havel lot in common

prussian advisor posted:

What job?

I externed at a software company in Gainesville with their GC; they also do statistical consulting expert witness work (damages amounts, etc.). I also worked there full time over the summer, working part time this semester & next semester, and then again after the bar exam. I don't think that there is an officially-announced title yet, because it will be a new position, but I imagine it will be something like "Junior GC" or "Assistant GC" or the like.

It's great, because corporate work is what I'm used to, the money is good, and quite frankly I am too old to work 80 hours a week anymore.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 17:41

Tacos Are Good: Jun 28, 2004; mmmmm...

How much capital does it actually take to create a law school? Can you receive your students loans before the semester starts? If so, who wants to open up a second law school in Austin? You know, a private law school for transient out of state hipsters not controlled by Ricky Perry or influenced by people from scary places like Dallas or Houston. Tuition is only 50K with a nifty recycled messenger bag included. Most of the classes are held outside in public places(ie we don't pay for class room space) and bring your own recycled paper to show your personality. Gotta be green man. Go to a starbucks to take your exams, we don't provide wifi, that is a public utility man... Some courses are taught entirely by youtube because we are cutting edge. Yes it's just clips of car crashes and dogs dressed like people, but as you learn to think like a lawyer it will all make sense. Not yet being approved by the ABA means we are like a undiscovered band that none of your friends have ever heard of. Be unique and enroll today!

# ? Aug 22, 2011 18:10

Linguica: Jul 13, 2000; You're already dead

Gotta bring the food truck business model to the law school industry. Where will the torts class show up today? Check our tumblr for updates!!

# ? Aug 22, 2011 18:13

SlyFrog: May 16, 2007; What? One name? Who are you, Seal?

atlas of bugs posted:

that's a cool post, definitely gonna reread it while I literally summer in France on my IBR money

That's fine, just keep your French anchor baby away from here.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 19:08

atlas of bugs: Aug 19, 2003; BOOTSTRAPPING
MILLIONAIRE
ONE-PERCENTER

mods please rename me "french anchor baby"

# ? Aug 22, 2011 19:45

sigmachiev: Dec 31, 2007; Fighting blood excels

Tacos Are Good posted:

How much capital does it actually take to create a law school? Can you receive your students loans before the semester starts? If so, who wants to open up a second law school in Austin? You know, a private law school for transient out of state hipsters not controlled by Ricky Perry or influenced by people from scary places like Dallas or Houston. Tuition is only 50K with a nifty recycled messenger bag included. Most of the classes are held outside in public places(ie we don't pay for class room space) and bring your own recycled paper to show your personality. Gotta be green man. Go to a starbucks to take your exams, we don't provide wifi, that is a public utility man... Some courses are taught entirely by youtube because we are cutting edge. Yes it's just clips of car crashes and dogs dressed like people, but as you learn to think like a lawyer it will all make sense. Not yet being approved by the ABA means we are like a undiscovered band that none of your friends have ever heard of. Be unique and enroll today!

You also have an easy IP angle - talk about how Austin is a hot city for tech, and the school is on the forefront of Gadget Law.

I like when we play Law Goon University.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 20:57

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Tacos Are Good posted:

How much capital does it actually take to create a law school? Can you receive your students loans before the semester starts? If so, who wants to open up a second law school in Austin? You know, a private law school for transient out of state hipsters not controlled by Ricky Perry or influenced by people from scary places like Dallas or Houston. Tuition is only 50K with a nifty recycled messenger bag included. Most of the classes are held outside in public places(ie we don't pay for class room space) and bring your own recycled paper to show your personality. Gotta be green man. Go to a starbucks to take your exams, we don't provide wifi, that is a public utility man... Some courses are taught entirely by youtube because we are cutting edge. Yes it's just clips of car crashes and dogs dressed like people, but as you learn to think like a lawyer it will all make sense. Not yet being approved by the ABA means we are like a undiscovered band that none of your friends have ever heard of. Be unique and enroll today!

Wait, why are we giving exams? At goon university everyone is summa cum laude. Fight the man!

# ? Aug 22, 2011 21:23

Lilosh: Jul 13, 2001; I'm Lilosh with an OSHY

holylemon posted:

While this sucks for you, it's annoying that people always point to the process as the reason they're not on law review. How is the system you described a "black box" when you know exactly which criteria determine the outcome? And why is that system arbitrary? Because it invites people based on more than one criteria?

Good writers may still write poor competition entries (and often do). If these people are as good as you say, their writing comp score alone should have been enough to qualify them, and if not that, then certainly their GPA+score would... unless they wrote a lovely entry. Maybe there are a few instances where a person got screwed by harsh graders, but that problem is basically solved by having a sufficient number of people grade each entry. I have administered a system very similar to the one you described, and really do believe that anyone who "fell through the cracks" did so because their entry wasn't good enough. I think this not because of some need to believe that our system is perfect (it isn't), but because I was curious and read the relevant entries.

Anyway, I don't know what happened in your situation. Maybe you wrote something awesome and got screwed. But I wanted to reply to your post because the general sentiment highlights one of the things I hate most about law school: so many people think they're special and that if they don't get what they want, it's because the system is somehow responsible. The individual is never responsible! (I'm not really talking about jobs because there, the system really is the problem most of the time.) I've had to have multiple conversations with people who thought they were special snowflakes who deserved to be on law review and who then got pissed at me when I told them I wasn't going to make an exception for them, so your post hit particularly close to home. This post isn't meant as a personal attack, though - I won't pretend to know whether you fit into the category of people I just described.

Oh, I freely admit that I'm not in the "great writer" category, and I'm probably one of the only few people who isn't wondering how I didn't end up on law review. I know my writing wasn't awesome, and even though I fell squarely at the median of my class in LRW (along with 70% of my classmates, i should add), I've always felt like my writing needed work. Though it was a sizable blow to my ego to realize it was in the bottom third of all competitors. (It would have been nice if stellar loving grades could have made up for a weak entry, though. It's odd to have a policy that you can grade onto LR unless your writing, based on one rushed exhausted sample, is unpolished enough to fall into the bottom third of entries)

What I meant was that it wasn't exactly clear to us what rubric was used to evaluate our work. They just told us to write a XX page note and edit XX pages of a godawful intentionally-bad note. The description of how our entries were being evaluated/rated/ranked was kind of a black-box.

Write note + edit test ---> ?????? ----> Writing competition score!

It's mostly a few of my friends who were consistently amazing writers that surprised me by not being on LR. The LR and journal people always said "Oh don't worry about how it's scored. If you're the kind of student who is at the top of your class, it's almost always the case that your writing is great!"

Let's not even get into the fact that it's an entirely different kind of writing than we're taught in LRW, and we're given little, if any, time to practice it, and that our 10-day writing competition comes literally the day after our last final. You post had a lot of valid points about the entitlement attitude of law students, but in some ways, this system is hosed.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 21:25

srsly: Aug 1, 2003

quote:

Admittedly, the CFU Tower is phallic in nature. Phallic symbols are now, and have always been, common in the society of man as an identifier of fertility. furthermore, conventional towers and obelisks are intentional derivatives of a phallus � meant to portray strength, fertility and power.

The Applicant should not be denied the right to protect these Alpha-male characteristics just because the USPTO feels threatened by them. After all, America is an Alpha nation, and such a Beta position cuts against the very fabric of the symbolism that tells the tale of the American experience.

http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CFU-brief-and-exhibits.pdf

<3 Marc Randazza

# ? Aug 22, 2011 22:17

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

srsly posted:

http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CFU-brief-and-exhibits.pdf

<3 Marc Randazza

Wait does this mean that ip law can be interesting?

# ? Aug 22, 2011 22:40

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Lilosh posted:

Oh, I freely admit that I'm not in the "great writer" category, and I'm probably one of the only few people who isn't wondering how I didn't end up on law review. I know my writing wasn't awesome, and even though I fell squarely at the median of my class in LRW (along with 70% of my classmates, i should add), I've always felt like my writing needed work. Though it was a sizable blow to my ego to realize it was in the bottom third of all competitors. (It would have been nice if stellar loving grades could have made up for a weak entry, though. It's odd to have a policy that you can grade onto LR unless your writing, based on one rushed exhausted sample, is unpolished enough to fall into the bottom third of entries)

What I meant was that it wasn't exactly clear to us what rubric was used to evaluate our work. They just told us to write a XX page note and edit XX pages of a godawful intentionally-bad note. The description of how our entries were being evaluated/rated/ranked was kind of a black-box.

Write note + edit test ---> ?????? ----> Writing competition score!

It's mostly a few of my friends who were consistently amazing writers that surprised me by not being on LR. The LR and journal people always said "Oh don't worry about how it's scored. If you're the kind of student who is at the top of your class, it's almost always the case that your writing is great!"

Let's not even get into the fact that it's an entirely different kind of writing than we're taught in LRW, and we're given little, if any, time to practice it, and that our 10-day writing competition comes literally the day after our last final. You post had a lot of valid points about the entitlement attitude of law students, but in some ways, this system is hosed.

Consider yourself lucky. Here, we are required to meet a threshold on a four hour insane bluebooking exam before our arbitrary, black box writing competition. It is entirely unlike any writing we have or ever will do.

There is no way to grade on, but we can note on.

(But seriously, you don't see where "writing well under time constraints and pressure" might be utile for law review, especially editing scholarship? As for the opaqueness, well, welcome to law and legal education! No one knows anything!)

# ? Aug 22, 2011 23:02

Tacos Are Good: Jun 28, 2004; mmmmm...

nm posted:

Wait, why are we giving exams? At goon university everyone is summa cum laude. Fight the man!

Obviously all of the special snowflake will obtain summa cum laude, the other ranks are for the "non snowflakes." Don't worry about the 3.95GPA requirement for your partial scholarship, you wouldn't get if you weren't special, after all you are doing international animal rights law with a focus on puppies and ponies.

# ? Aug 22, 2011 23:27

Sulecrist: Apr 5, 2007; Better tear off this bar association logo.

Lilosh posted:

Oh, I freely admit that I'm not in the "great writer" category, and I'm probably one of the only few people who isn't wondering how I didn't end up on law review

don't write like this

# ? Aug 22, 2011 23:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 05:02

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

nm posted:

Wait does this mean that ip law can be interesting?

trademark law is funny because every once in a while this happens

# ? Aug 23, 2011 00:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

«‹›1550 »