|
Toona the Cat posted:Yes, Duquesne, about $7,500 a year after a non-GPA reliant scholarship. One thing I wasn't clear about--Are you going to work while you're at law school? Are you putting a career on hold that you can go back into, or are you leaving your career?
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Yes, Duquesne, about $7,500 a year after a non-GPA reliant scholarship. What kind of scholarship? Does that $7,500 a year include lost wages? We need more info to continue dissuading you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Dear thread: thank you for not being a bunch of humorless twats. Sure you're still a bunch of goony twats, but you're my kind of twats. I just wanted to say I love you all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:One thing I wasn't clear about--Are you going to work while you're at law school? Are you putting a career on hold that you can go back into, or are you leaving your career? No, my wife's income is sufficient to where I don't have to work. I haven't worked since the summer of 2012, and have been using my GI Bill stipend and grants for spending money. My last real job was as a railroad clerk I could go back to if I desperately needed to. BigHead posted:What kind of scholarship? Does that $7,500 a year include lost wages? I can't recall the exact name but it's a merit scholarship that's renewable as long as I maintain good academic standing which is defined as a 2.0 GPA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Have you worked in the legal field before and/or is there someone that will hook you up with a job after you graduate? Have you considered just getting a paralegal certification?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Pretty sure the thread already went through this exercise with that poster. At this point, Everyone Go to Law School.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Y'all toona has run the traps in the thread he's going to law school. The best we can do at this point is how he's successful and quote his posts when he's looking for work desperately in 3.5 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
There's still time!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Y'all toona has run the traps in the thread he's going to law school. The best we can do at this point is how he's successful and quote his posts when he's looking for work desperately in 3.5 years. This, basically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Dear thread: thank you for not being a bunch of humorless twats. Sure you're still a bunch of goony twats, but you're my kind of twats. I just wanted to say twats twats
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Y'all toona has run the twats in the thread he's going to law school. The best we can twat at this point is how he's successful and twat his posts when he's twatting for work despertwately in 3.5 twats. there was a great 10-8 post a few years ago that convinced me to stop trying to save them. there's plenty of evidence out there that would have let them save themselves, so why bother? it's way funnier to just passively watch as they do whatever then drink their sweet, briny tears when they fail
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:No, my wife's income is sufficient to where I don't have to work. I haven't worked since the summer of 2012, and have been using my GI Bill stipend and grants for spending money. My last real job was as a railroad clerk I could go back to if I desperately needed to. In your earlier post you said the scholarship was "non-GPA-reliant," and then you mentioned in another post that it requires a 2.0 GPA. This will sound nitpicky at first, but you need to be less careless than this for such a major investment of time and money. At UCLA or Georgetown, it's extremely rare for students to have GPAs under 2.0. At low-tier schools, it's normal for dozens of students to flush out every year because their GPAs are lower than the minimum required to be in "good standing," or because their seemingly-safe scholarships were revoked. Presumably most of those people did not think they would end up with a GPA below that threshold. The school you're thinking about attending is Duquesne, which publishes no formal mandatory curve for professors to follow. This is what the Duquesne website says: "For each first-year course and all upper-level courses of 15 or more students, the Faculty suggests that 20-25% of the grades be A- or above, 50-60% of the grades be B- to B+, and 20-25% of the grades be C+ or below." You should assume that any low-ranked law school is run by scammers who, in order to keep their jobs, have to try every deplorable trick they can get away with in order to maximize revenue for the school. For all you know, faculty are privately encouraged or even required to make a certain percent of their letter grades F's. With that said, I think you're probably fine. Soothing Vapors posted:there was a great 10-8 post a few years ago that convinced me to stop trying to save them. there's plenty of evidence out there that would have let them save themselves, so why bother? it's way funnier to just passively watch as they do whatever then drink their sweet, briny tears when they fail I thought we sort of came to an unspoken consensus that this kind of schadenfreude is pretty hosed up. If you believe in a world where only people you consider to be smart deserve not to suffer, then you are a terrible person. I know you play a character in this thread and were probably joking, but a lot of people, especially lawyers, actually think like this. Also, same thing to the lawyers who get a lot of pleasure out of watching people with deteriorating mental states file pro se "sovereign citizen" suits. I understand that it can be funny in a gallows humor sort of way, but you can bet that their parents and other loved ones find the ceaseless decline of these people's lives and sanity to be horrifying, not funny. MoFauxHawk fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:This tangent is making me not look forward to legal writing, which I guess my law school is highly ranked at. This is more the quote that bothers me (unless its a joke and I missed it). If you actually believe this it means you haven't done the right research going into this investment. However, it does appear that you will be fine given that scholarship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:I twat we sort of came to an unspoken consensus that this kind of schadenfreude is pretty hosed up. If you believe in a world where only people you consider to be smart deserve not to suffer, then you are a twatrrible person. I know you play a twat in this thread and were probably twatting, but a lot of people, especially lawyers, actually think like this. *strokes your hair, so tenderly* you're a good person, mofo Soothing Vapors fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:This is more the quote that bothers me (unless its a joke and I missed it). My law school decision came down to either Duquesne or Pitt since I wanted to stay in Pittsburgh, and plan to stay here for the rest of my life. Duquesne offered more money and is a perfectly fine school for the local job market with an extensive alumni network, particularly judges since all of ours are elected and dear god do Pittsburghers love to vote for locals. I'm on my county's Democratic committee and I've spent a lot of time helping get them elected so I'm hoping that pays off in the long run. In fact I just went to a breakfast for a lawyer this morning who is running for judge and I agreed to pass around ballot petitions for him, and he's a Duquesne alum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Somewhere there is an inadequately monitored pie eating contest that needs refereeing. Suggest you get on that and leave the rest of us assholes to our petty vices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Just for the record, if I could stay home and be a (paid off) house husband and somehow needed to entertain myself with higher education, I'd get something more interesting and possibly more useful, like an M.A. in History, English, or Philosophy. I'd probably just put a bigger dent in my sofa though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
nm posted:Just for the record, if I could stay home and be a (paid off) house husband and somehow needed to entertain myself with higher education, I'd get something more interesting and possibly more useful, like an M.A. in History, English, or Philosophy. The two years I spent getting my ma in history were easily the best, most relaxed years of my life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
If I didn't have to work I would totally go get a degree in Equestrian studies or musical theater.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If I didn't have to work I would totally go get a degree in Equestrian studies or musical theater. One day I found myself knee-deep in the process of making a flow chart to figure out how best to move pro pers through our court. When I realized this, my thought was "I went to school for theatre! I wanted to direct Shakespeare and musicals! What happened to me?" I am one Max Bialystock away from living out my own Springtime for Hitler situation. Edit: Sidebar. Anyone have experience with pre-suit/anti-suit injunctions/gatekeeper orders, etc? I'm interested in their efficacy in deterring vexatious litigants (especially of the fringe-on-flag school).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:One day I found myself knee-deep in the process of making a flow chart to figure out how best to move pro pers through our court. The answer is machine guns, FYI. edit: Same answer for the sidebar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:I thought we sort of came to an unspoken consensus that this kind of schadenfreude is pretty hosed up. If you believe in a world where only people you consider to be smart deserve not to suffer, then you are a terrible person. I know you play a character in this thread and were probably joking, but a lot of people, especially lawyers, actually think like this. drat, I was angling for the Sargent Sensitive's February's Cares-the-Most Award and the $25 Olive Garden Gift Card that comes with it, but buster brown here has it locked up now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Sidebar. Anyone have experience with pre-suit/anti-suit injunctions/gatekeeper orders, etc? I'm interested in their efficacy in deterring vexatious litigants (especially of the fringe-on-flag school). In Texas, you can bring suit to have someone deemed a "Vexatious Litigant," and if you win, then their name goes on a list and clerk's can reject their poo poo right at the counter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:I thought we sort of came to an unspoken consensus that this kind of schadenfreude is pretty hosed up. If you believe in a world where only people you consider to be smart deserve not to suffer, then you are a terrible person. I know you play a character in this thread and were probably joking, but a lot of people, especially lawyers, actually think like this. I think if some bright-eyed 20 something dropped by to say she was selling the family farm to go to Cooley for panda law, this sentiment would true. But this guy seems to know what he's getting into, and honestly, independently wealthy people with too much time on their hands seem to be the ideal law student anyhow, so I'm sure it will all work out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:One day I found myself knee-deep in the process of making a flow chart to figure out how best to move pro pers through our court. I hear ya, man. Film school here. I still do theater. Everyone needs a hobby. Singing next weekend. Shows gonna suck but at least I sound ok.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:In Texas, you can bring suit to have someone deemed a "Vexatious Litigant," and if you win, then their name goes on a list and clerk's can reject their poo poo right at the counter. Doesn't this assume the clerk will actually do that? The Cook County Clerk ignores orders barring people from filing anything, it's pointless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Somewhere there is an inadequately monitored pie eating contest that needs refereeing. Suggest you get on that and leave the rest of us assholes to our petty vices. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Sidebar. Anyone have experience with pre-suit/anti-suit injunctions/gatekeeper orders, etc? I'm interested in their efficacy in deterring vexatious litigants (especially of the fringe-on-flag school). Yup. What I did was go through the guy's past filing history, then order him to show cause why he shouldn't be subject to a pre-filing screening. The dude obviously doesn't show cause, so you enter a pre-filing injunction. The big things are it's good to give the person an opportunity to show cause and make sure they're not completely cut off from the court. The guy always alleged government conspiracies, so anything that named a political figure or government entity as a defendant would be automatically rejected. I also added some procedural requirements to make it more of a pain in the rear end for him to get a suit through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Yup. What I did was go through the guy's past filing history, then order him to show cause why he shouldn't be subject to a pre-filing screening. The dude obviously doesn't show cause, so you enter a pre-filing injunction. That's what I'm contemplating. I've actually turned up a surprisingly small amount of state case law on the issue, or on vexatious litigant status. Our appellate court just decided an unpublished case on a prefiling injunction, and it almost exclusively relied on analogous federal caselaw. What procedural requirements, if I can ask? Just filing a motion seeking leave or posting a bond or what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Somewhere there is an inadequately monitored pie eating contest that needs refereeing. Suggest you get on that and leave the rest of us assholes to our petty vices. I have that trophy proudly displayed in my home. The law diploma itself, however, I never bothered to get a copy of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Doesn't this assume the clerk will actually do that? The Cook County Clerk ignores orders barring people from filing anything, it's pointless. It's because they hate all sides involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
If I didn't have to work, I would probably draw more frequently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
SNOW DAY!!!!!! But is this a school holiday which allows PC to keep the kids or should he/she return the children???? All my clients all at once need to know this!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:SNOW DAY!!!!!! "You should work that out with your spouse. I'm not going to court on that issue."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Fortunately for my misplaced sense of obligation, all I had today was a deposition that was cancelled last night in anticipation of the snow day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:That's what I'm contemplating. I've actually turned up a surprisingly small amount of state case law on the issue, or on vexatious litigant status. Our appellate court just decided an unpublished case on a prefiling injunction, and it almost exclusively relied on analogous federal caselaw. I came across some state courts using federal law to enjoin the party. Almost every court cites Martin-trigona as the case demonstrating why filing orders are ok. For our guy, we enjoined him from filing any suit naming a a current or former government official or entity as a defendant unless he got screening approval from us. Whatever complaint needed a motion for leave to file, a certification that the claims had not been raised in an earlier suit, a separate brief for each defendant explaining why that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity, a certification that the claims were made in good faith, and a copy of the order enjoining him. I like doing it this way because it's basically doing 1915 screening before filing, so the litigant can't say you're cutting off his access to the court since all you're doing is a frivolity analysis before filing. So far, he hasn't met every requirement, so the clerk just gives him his stuff back after I look at it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Please tell me tales of what it's like to have competent administrative support. I wish to bask in the warm glow of other people's happiness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Posted this a couple weeks back and got no response. Giving it one more shot. Two admissions questions, speculation welcome: 1) Do schools only care about LSDAS cumulative GPA? I.e. degree and graduate GPA mean pretty much zip (though I've seen that Colorado, Vermont, and Seattle use degree GPA for their admission index). 2) Is a documented Canadian aboriginal applicant considered URM by any US schools? I've done grad school applications several times and never seen this as an available ethnicity until now. Edit: Not asking for a friend. I've got a 3.0 cumulative GPA (I hosed around a lot prior to 2005), 3.9 degree GPA, 4.0 grad GPA, and I'm First Nation. nanodroogie fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
nanodroogie posted:Posted this a couple weeks back and got no response. Giving it one more shot. 1. They do not typically give a gently caress about grad or degree gpas. 2. Probably yes. Certainly can't see an argument that Canadian First Nations are more represented than US First Nations, and they're URMs, so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Please tell me tales of what it's like to have competent administrative support. I wish to bask in the warm glow of other people's happiness. My paralegal texted me last night to let me know that she had already spoken to opposing counsel and our witness and rescheduled today's deposition because of the impending weather.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:09
|
|