|
No offense but you failed out of law school, why do you think it is for you?
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
In before "verbal rape of Nan-King."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
Fair enough about the writing sample, unfortunately I do not have the original question to go with it but it involves an NIED claim because a professor took his two favorite students out diving and in his absent minded nature took them to the part of the island where the sharks are a plenty. The reason I am using this one is that it is the last writing sample I had to do before my exams and my professor looking it over gave me the big thumbs up. Feel free to tear it apart. So for your amusement I copy and paste for you: Susan can bring a successful claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Martin for the death of her boyfriend Larry. In order to establish that Larry had a duty to Susan a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress must show forseeability. Forseeability is demonstrated by being near the accident, have a sensory and contemporaneous understanding of the event, the plaintiff and victim have a close relationship and the direct emotional impact results in a physical injury to the plaintiff. Because Susan was directly above Larry in the boat she was in close in proximity to the accident. The court finds that in order be near the accident has to be in close proximity which is self evident in the facts. In Dillion a mother was determined to be near enough to an accident which involved her daughter being hit by a car in the street while she was standing a distance away on the street curb. Like the mother in Dillion, Susan was a distance away being on the boat while Larry was in the water below the boat being attacked by sharks. She was near the accident in the same way the mother was when she was standing on the street curb. There is nothing to dispute that she was not near the accident when it happened. Because Susan was on the boat directly above Larry when he was attacked by sharks occurred she therefore was near the accident when it occurred. Susan had a sensory and contemporaneous perception of the accident and that Larry was likely injured or dead when she saw the oxygen bubbles ceasing to reach the surface and the blood slick forming at the surface of the water. To have a sensory and contemporaneous perception of the event Susan has to be aware of what is happening to Larry. This perception does not have to be based upon actually seeing the accident but being aware that it has happened. In Krouse a husband who knew where his wife was standing knew that a speeding truck that left the curb and went barreling past him most likely hit and killed his wife. In Molbadi a foster parent was aware that something was happening to her foster child when he went into medical distress while she did not know the exact reason as to why only that she could observe that something was well out of the ordinary. Susan was aware that Larry was in great danger when she saw the oxygen bubbles no longer rising to the surface and the blood slick that began to form at surface she knew something was horribly wrong with Larry. Like Krouse not seeing the truck actually hit his wife, she could not see Larry being savagely attacked by the sharks but she knew based upon his position in the water and his need for oxygen that when the bubbles stopped and the blood came up to the surface something terrible had happened. Like in Molbadi while Susan did not know what was causing the accident she knew based upon blood and lack of oxygen something horrible had occurred especially when she saw Martin pulling Larry's motionless body to the surface. Also while it took 10 minutes for Martin to retrieve Larry which meant the time without oxygen and continued blood loss was a grave sign that a very serious accident had occurred. While Martin will argue that Susan had to be told that Larry was dead and could not see the sharks attacking Larry the fact the she could understand that something was terribly wrong based upon her understanding of Larry's position in the water, lack of oxygen and blood in the water she therefore had a sensory and contemporaneous understanding of the accident as it was happening to Larry. Susan can demonstrate that she and Larry had a relationship with each other. A close relationship in the eyes of the court is one that is close and familial in nature and the defendant's knowledge of the relationship can play a part in determining the relationships closeness. In Molbadi while the foster mother and child did not have a blood relationship because of their closeness and the fact they referred to each other as mother and son and other people took them to mother and son it was demonstrable that they had a close familial relationship. In our case Larry and Susan had a close relationship in that they were having a child together, and while they were holding off on entering into a traditional marriage they considered themselves to be husband and wife in a non-traditional sense. This is like Molbadi where while the foster mother and child were not mother and son by blood their relationship together was a like that of a mother and son by blood. In our case Larry and Susan are in a husband and wife like relationship despite not actually being married in the traditional sense and Martin was aware of it. While it may be argued that because Larry and Susan could not be in a close relationship because they are not formally married it does not argue away the fact that the two decided to have a child together intentionally based upon the fact they consider each other life partners and their only reason for not getting married was not based on a lack of closeness but financial considerations that made the formality of having an actual marriage ceremony not worth the trouble. Also Martin was aware of how close Larry and Susan were and the nature of their relationship based upon how close he was with them which is demonstrated by their visiting each other and Martin's taking them on vacation with him. Because Larry and Susan were having a child and in a marriage like relationship which Martin knew the full extent of based on his relationship with the two of them therefore Susan can demonstrate a close familial relationship with Larry. Susan can demonstrate a direct emotional impact that results in a physical injury by showing the shock of Larry's death caused her such distress as to miscarry their intended child. To have an emotional impact that results it has to be from the accident and not the associated feelings of grief and anger that occur afterward. In Krouse the husband's emotional distress was after the accident and was not manifested in a physical injury, instead he went through the emotions typically understood for a person to experience at the tragic loss of a loved one. In our case Susan's shock from knowing Larry was in life threatening danger and knowing that he was most likely gravely injured or dead followed by seeing his motionless bodied pulled to the surface caused her to miscarry the baby. The physical injury was immediate and the resulting shock was not a normal part of the emotions normally associated with her the feelings of grief and loss normally associated with losing someone. Therefore because she miscarried the baby due to the shock of the accident Susan can show she suffered physical injury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:
Son, you can't write. Time to hang 'em up. Go do something else before you waste even more time and money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:I have friends that will help me get into the local prosecutors office back home, and I can live with the loans. Also take into account that these tyes of jobs are highly coveted these days and hard for people from T1s to get, much less T4s with "friends." My experience is that they don't care much about grades though. Drop it, do something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Son, you can't write. Time to hang 'em up. Go do something else before you waste even more time and money. I'm sorry Scooter but Grundy has laid it down straight. Move on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:To answer a few questions, yes it was a t4 school. Yes my friends have a good deal of sway. It was for grades, in fact my GPA slipped despite following the school's academic help program and the increased level of effort. It was really disconcerting for me to see the amount of work I put in come to nothing. As for knowing the material I was told my first semester that it was my writing that hurt me and in my second semester I had no problem keeping up in class and all indications were that I had turned the corner. I graduated at the very top of a TTT, summa, King Scholar, LR, SBA, paid summer work, Court of Appeals externship, TA'd for multiple profs, did a clinic, president of a student group, did a Moot Court Comp, and published an article in the most prestigious journal nationwide for that area of law, winning a writing contest over submissions from ivies in the process. Currently no job, I have well over 100 rejection letters from places that I didn't even get an interview with. While I still hope to eventually get a job, this is not a path you want to go down armed with a sketchy transcript filled with retakes and grades that are the average of two grades. Your writing doesn't seem too good but it doesn't really matter at this point. Don't do it. Go do something else for a few years and see if you still want to get into this market.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
Super. Well at least these loans can be written off and paid down over time. I do have to admit I feel like a fool for being lead on to this point but I know part of it was me believing I could do it. The world doesn't need an extra lawyer, I'll go get a job at a nice Irish restaurant and call it a life. Now where is that McDonald's application...
Alkabob fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:So does anyone have any knowledge or experience about returning to law school after being academically dismissed. I'm raising an appeal but my particular school is unfriendly to academic appeals even when there are extraordinary circumstances. I have some professors willing to support me, but I am also preparing for the long road ahead. We had two classmates who fell below the academic minimum 1L year, I think it was a 2.15 (on a 2.9 mean curve). One sucked some professor dick (obnoxious loving gunner but professors liked him for some reason) and was able to redo 1L the next year. I can't remember what he ended up doing but pretty sure he ended up with a job. He was also banging a judge's daughter at some point, not sure if that helped. Other one pissed off a professor and had to wait a year before coming back. He was a patent guy, got a job with the PTO after graduating, and then at some point quit that job, was unemployed for a while, and I think now makes six figures working in house at a giant corporation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Kase Im Licht posted:So I'll come out on sort of the other side of this one. However these are just anecdotes and you should probably not try to return to law school. What you have done here is unconscionable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
answer doesn't seem that bad. still don't go back but the answer provided no additional evidence suggesting that you shouldn't go back
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Yeah, my worthless 0L opinion is that the writing (I can't comment on the content) seems less than superb but not awful, assuming the content is "correct." I would have to guess your actual exam answers were considerably poorer or more likely missed a variety of issues. At least I hope so, because my writing has never been excellent under pressure. I don't know how you failed out rather than being passed on through at a T4, as I know people at T1s with poorer writing skills, but what's done is done, and you should move on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:What you have done here is unconscionable. I think all he was saying was that yes it has been done before. In the same sense that someone has jumped out of a plane, not had their parachute open, hit the ground and bounced 10 times and lived. My client would never suggest that such turns in fortune are common place or such short stories of redemption so simple. quote:Yeah, my worthless 0L opinion is that the writing (I can't comment on the content) seems less than superb but not awful, assuming the content is "correct." I would have to guess your actual exam answers were considerably poorer or more likely missed a variety of issues. At least I hope so, because my writing has never been excellent under pressure. I don't know how you failed out rather than being passed on through at a T4, as I know people at T1s with poorer writing skills, but what's done is done, and you should move on. Yeah I just feel kind of cheated or short changed. Maybe it is a sign I should just go back to playing poker, I did well enough to make ends meat and pay my car off, it just didn't feel like the sort of accomplishment you could look back on with pride on your deathbed. Alkabob fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
Not sure why everyone's so confused as to why he failed out of law school despite his model answer not being a total poo poo sculpture. You guys do realize that a lot of T4 law schools curve to around a 2.0 and fail anywhere from 10 to 33% of the class by design, right? Most of them would (theoretically) have their accreditation stripped by the ABA for having graduate bar passage rates below the acceptable level otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:Not sure why everyone's so confused as to why he failed out of law school despite his model answer not being a total poo poo sculpture. You guys do realize that a lot of T4 law schools curve to around a 2.0 and fail anywhere from 10 to 33% of the class by design, right? Most of them would (theoretically) have their accreditation stripped by the ABA for having graduate bar passage rates below the acceptable level otherwise. Yeah, I'm astounded by people saying "it's impossible" to fail out of law school. At Cooley, everyone I knew could tell me who their best friend was who dropped out in 1L. (I'm an exception because I didn't make any friends until my last two terms.) I don't think Cooley's attrition rate is still 33%, but it certainly was for a long time. You know that hackneyed "look to your left; now look to your right; by the end of the term, one of the three of you will be gone" routine? That used to be a literal part of the Cooley orientation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Yeah, I'm astounded by people saying "it's impossible" to fail out of law school. At Cooley, everyone I knew could tell me who their best friend was who dropped out in 1L. (I'm an exception because I didn't make any friends until my last two terms.) All that being said you should not be a lawyer if you flunk out of loving Cooley.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Yeah, I'm astounded by people saying "it's impossible" to fail out of law school. At Cooley, everyone I knew could tell me who their best friend was who dropped out in 1L. (I'm an exception because I didn't make any friends until my last two terms.) I've heard Cooley's attrition rate was actually at 50%. I did know a person who went there a long time ago and became a very respected prosecutor and later judge in my state. He made a very nice living for himself and is still spoken very well of even years after passing away. I got accepted to Cooley but didn't go because I heard some bad things about it being a law student attrition mill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Yeah, I'm astounded by people saying "it's impossible" to fail out of law school. At Cooley, everyone I knew could tell me who their best friend was who dropped out in 1L. (I'm an exception because I didn't make any friends until my last two terms.) Well, at a lot of schools it certainly is impossible to fail. It was possible, but difficult, at my low-T1 1L institution. At Columbia, I'm pretty sure you could smear your own poo poo on a piece of paper like a chimpanzee and hand it on in lieu of an exam answer and that'd be good for at least a B- as an upperclassmen--I'm pretty sure it was impossible to fail unless you literally refused to show up for exams. Coming from an institution like that (and a lot of people in this thread do,) it can be really easy to forget that lots of law schools have the opposite attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
There are people who I knew in school who walked into an exam and very clearly just sat there quietly not writing or doing anything until it was over and they're still walking around. So there are guys around who literally left an exam book empty and still stayed in law school, you tried really hard and flunked out. Sorry man
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:There are people who I knew in school who walked into an exam and very clearly just sat there quietly not writing or doing anything until it was over and they're still walking around. I dont know, I have a friend at UVA who literally walked into his very last law school exam, panicked and just walked out without writing anything down and he did not graduate because he was 3 credits short because that exam was all they had to grade him on. The school did everything they could to help him come back the next semester but he still hasn't graduated and gotten his JD because he's missing those 3 credits. So I do know a person who failed out of school but it literally took an empty answer book. And the attrition rates at lower tiered school aren't all people failing out. None of my T3 friends failed out but quite a few lost their scholarships because of the curve and dropped out vs. paying full price because they weren't totally dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:To answer a few questions, Please go find a slumpbuster, get some TLC and then move on with your life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
I'm actually in a similar boat to scooter. My lovely, T4 school has a hard cut at 2.5 and a first year median of 2.5-2.7. I'm still gonna ignore you guys and appeal to get back in though. I want to come back here to share stories of my self inflicted pain to ward others away from the law. Edit: our first year attrition rate is close to 50%
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
You guys do realize that actually getting a law degree and not having a law job is like stapling an albatross to your head? I was getting denied minimum wage jobs, because they thought that the second I got anything legal-related, I would bolt. And if you leave it off your resume, you have to make up some poo poo in its place. "So, for three years, you were a competitive masturbator. How'd that go?" "Well, I usually came in first. And third."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
You guys trying to get back into T4's are really conflating "hard" with "worth doing." Nothing worth doing is easy; that doesn't mean everything difficult is worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
I'm gonna play a semi-professional editor and dissect your sample. I'm not doing this to be mean, but because if you do ever go back, you're 100% relying on your connections, who have to overcome the thing you're handing them and saying that's your best written work:Scooter_McCabe posted:Susan can bring a successful claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Martin for the death of her boyfriend Larry. stopped editing here, but it really doesn't get better  Sorry.
Adar fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:You guys do realize that actually getting a law degree and not having a law job is like stapling an albatross to your head? I was getting denied minimum wage jobs, because they thought that the second I got anything legal-related, I would bolt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
Adar posted:I'm gonna play a semi-professional editor and dissect your sample. I'm not doing this to be mean, but because if you do ever go back, you're 100% relying on your connections, who have to overcome the thing you're handing them and saying that's your best written work: that's before you get to the fact it's not really organized rationally or in any sort of accessible way
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:18
|
|
|
Wow I did not even get half of that from the professor who reviewed it, who was supposed to correct us on problems like this. That was really a huge eye opener, thank you for taking the time to shovel your way through that mess. I'll bet that is what ultimately killed my law school career, as I took that style into my exams on the belief that was how I was supposed to write. Not trying to poo poo blame but that sample was for the professor who was running the academic improvement class and told me that it was solid. I should have seen the forest for the trees. I still have to meet with the Dean and I am meeting with my professors to do a post mortem on the exams. I will still do the appeal if only for the sake of some sort of closure and actually making myself admit to where I failed. I won't finger point or beg, at this point its just a learning experience so in the future I never put myself down this sort of road again. Alkabob fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:29
|
|
|
I have been unemployed for 7 months as an archaeologist. Fast food won't hire me. I just took the LSAT - practice scores were in the 175-180 range, my GPA was ok, but you guys gotta tell this to me straight, is law worth doing? Everyone I hear from in law school I think drat, this sounds like the life. But should I just go try to be a merchant sailor instead and give up on indoor work? I come into this thread and you guys make it sound like the bleakest thing but in private sector archaeology I seen a man with 20 years experience and a masters working 16-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 30 or 40 grand and it was typical, and the government work is an old boys club. But y'all make law sound even worse than living in my mom's basement for 7 months getting rejected from McDonalds and from big firms every day no days off. Clarification - small words: IS LAW WORTH IT FOR **ANYONE** TO DO? IS THERE A SINGLE HAPPY PERSON IN THIS THREAD? shovelbum fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
God-drat. We are either being meta-trolled or there's some unbelievable loving retarded in this thread today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:
...You know what, gently caress it. There's too much here. It'd be quicker to simply rewrite the whole thing. Three main things you need to work on: 1) Compactness. No one wants to re-read the same poo poo over and over and over. Get to the point. 2) Passive Voice screams "I am a wimpy sissy." You wrote the memo almost entirely in passive voice. Active voice - I ate the apple. Passive voice - the apple was eaten by me. 3) Divide poo poo up. Section dividers and subsections are loving great. For an emotional distress claim, you'll generally have five elements: duty, breach, cause-in-fact, proximate cause and damages. Each could use its own section of the memo. That's just my style being anal though. Finally: 
G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:I have been unemployed for 7 months as an archaeologist. Fast food won't hire me. I just took the LSAT - practice scores were in the 175-180 range, my GPA was ok, but you guys gotta tell this to me straight, is law worth doing? Everyone I hear from in law school I think drat, this sounds like the life. But should I just go try to be a merchant sailor instead and give up on indoor work? Out of curiosity what is your exact degree. I know a few people who have their Phd and are in the same boat. Law school is a lot of hard work and some of your classmates end up becoming real sacks of crap. Also think of your loan situation. I did it because this is my only outstanding loan and I thought I could hack it. Wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:I have been unemployed for 7 months as an archaeologist. Fast food won't hire me. I just took the LSAT - practice scores were in the 175-180 range, my GPA was ok, but you guys gotta tell this to me straight, is law worth doing? Everyone I hear from in law school I think drat, this sounds like the life. But should I just go try to be a merchant sailor instead and give up on indoor work? I come into this thread and you guys make it sound like the bleakest thing but in private sector archaeology I seen a man with 20 years experience and a masters working 16-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 30 or 40 grand and it was typical, and the government work is an old boys club. But y'all make law sound even worse than living in my mom's basement for 7 months getting rejected from McDonalds and from big firms every day no days off. okay now we're gettin into trollin' on the off-chance that you aren't, what's your GPA? If it's quite good and you can actually score a 175+ on the LSAT, yeah, sure, go for it, as that's good enough for HYS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:Out of curiosity what is your exact degree. I know a few people who have their Phd and are in the same boat. Law school is a lot of hard work and some of your classmates end up becoming real sacks of crap. Also think of your loan situation. I did it because this is my only outstanding loan and I thought I could hack it. Wrong. I have zero loans currently. My undergraduate degree is a BA in Classical Archaeology but extensively cross-trained in North American work. I do not want to pursue a PhD because a PhD in something like arch is just cheap labor to be used up and thrown the gently caress away. I have seen profs train 30 PhD students to use, 1 hand groomed replacement, and none of them got jobs anyway. gently caress PhD school into the ground forever. I want to learn a real skill. Last year, I was working 50-70 hours a week. This year, not one hour of work. MEET ME BY DUCKS posted:okay now we're gettin into trollin' I am not a troll. I am honestly considering applying for law programs because it couldn't be much worse than my present situation, and I do not want to join the military. I see few other options.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:I have zero loans currently. My undergraduate degree is a BA in Classical Archaeology but extensively cross-trained in North American work. I do not want to pursue a PhD because a PhD in something like arch is just cheap labor to be used up and thrown the gently caress away. I have seen profs train 30 PhD students to use, 1 hand groomed replacement, and none of them got jobs anyway. gently caress PhD school into the ground forever. I want to learn a real skill. You're going to think I'm kidding but go be a plumber, an electrician or a welder. Great pay and practical education, not to mention poo poo tons of jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:I have been unemployed for 7 months as an archaeologist. Fast food won't hire me. I just took the LSAT - practice scores were in the 175-180 range, my GPA was ok, but you guys gotta tell this to me straight, is law worth doing? Everyone I hear from in law school I think drat, this sounds like the life. But should I just go try to be a merchant sailor instead and give up on indoor work? I come into this thread and you guys make it sound like the bleakest thing but in private sector archaeology I seen a man with 20 years experience and a masters working 16-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 30 or 40 grand and it was typical, and the government work is an old boys club. But y'all make law sound even worse than living in my mom's basement for 7 months getting rejected from McDonalds and from big firms every day no days off. If your options are exactly archaeology, merchant sailing, the military, law school or {gender you aren't attracted to} sex for rent money, I would pick law school. If they include something else reasonable to do with your time, go do that instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:I have zero loans currently. My undergraduate degree is a BA in Classical Archaeology but extensively cross-trained in North American work. I do not want to pursue a PhD because a PhD in something like arch is just cheap labor to be used up and thrown the gently caress away. I have seen profs train 30 PhD students to use, 1 hand groomed replacement, and none of them got jobs anyway. gently caress PhD school into the ground forever. I want to learn a real skill. Imagine your current situation, except with $150,000 in debt and after three years of grueling, soul-crushing academics, in which effort doesn't necessarily even correlate with academic success. I would surmise the field of law isn't too unlike archaeology right now. Graduates from top archaeology programs are probably employed, but it sounds like they probably aren't making good money or enjoying the work. The rest are in your situation. So if you want to try your hand at another field that is structurally the same as your current one, go for it. However, unless you graduate from a top school, you're going to end up in the same position you're in right now, with a crippling amount of debt and with even less possibility of service sector employment due to your additional degree. To answer your question as to whether it's a good idea for anyone to go to law school right now, of course it is. Score a 180, get into YLS and you're golden. Keep in mind this thread has one YLS student and a large amount of unemployed students, academically dismissed students, and T1 graduates begging for jobs, however, and that should give you a good perspective on your odds of success in the field of law. topheryan fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:You're going to think I'm kidding but go be a plumber, an electrician or a welder. Great pay and practical education, not to mention poo poo tons of jobs. Hahaha, everyone says so but getting hired for any of those things? Better have relatives in the union, or if you're in the South, hope you like making peanuts. If I could learn to be a pipeline welder I would do it in a second and risk getting crushed by a rolling end over end bulldozer (seen that in person, no one died) but last I checked no one is hiring anything ever outside the corporate sci-fi dystopia of Texas. I will go to the maritime transportation thread thanks. shovelbum fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:As for stating why "I want to be a lawyer," I've grown up around lawyers I know the good, bad and the ugly. quote:I have had other careers that did nothing for me and there is not much else that interests me. quote:I also have political aspirations quote:being a prosecutor with the classic tough on crime record always looks nice. quote:Also I enjoy arguing If you said "I enjoy being pedantic," your reason might have been actually more narrowly tailored to the legal profession. But even then it isn't really a good reason. quote:and pitting myself mentally against others. You've provided non-reasons, reasons why you want to be a politician, bad reasons, and vague reasons that aren't specific to being an attorney. I'm not convinced you want to be an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
As someone who has done a great deal of political work, I can tell you that you probably do not want to be a politician. In theory you might, like anyone might if they were just appointed, but the amount of work you have to do to even win a local election these days rivals Biglaw hours, without any pay. Throw in daily interactions with the sort of human beings that make one begin to lose faith in humanity, having to deal with local party politics, physically walking for voter contact day after day with the possibility of no pay-off whatsoever, and you have something even worse than legal work and law school. The only reason I'm even marginally excited for law school is because it means I'm done with political work. If you actually do enjoy politics on a more sophisticated level than "I want to be a politician," I would suggest, given that you do not continue with law school, that you volunteer with a campaign. Campaigns are better than law school in that it is strongly effort and merit-based, and if the campaign you're volunteering for has money and sees your hard work, you have a good shot at a job. Campaign work requires nothing beyond the ability to engage with constituents and persuade them, although this often can span 12-14 hours a day, everyday. The pay isn't great, but it is a good taste of what it takes to run for office, and it will get you involved in the local political infrastructures that decide to back candidates for office. topheryan fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 05:58
|
|