|
Green Crayons posted:Took four semesters, but officially hit the "gently caress it" wall. Are you dropping out? Please be dropping out. The world doesn't need another lawyer but we need another success story.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
BigHead posted:Are you dropping out? Please be dropping out. The world doesn't need another lawyer but we need another success story. If he's done 4 semesters, it may too late  2 years of law school is a lot of loving money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Took four semesters, but officially hit the "gently caress it" wall. Yyyyyyup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 09:24
|
|
|
nm posted:If he's done 4 semesters, it may too late SUNK COST FALLACY
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Are you dropping out? Please be dropping out. The world doesn't need another lawyer but we need another success story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
^^^ It's definitely hard to care when you already have a job lined up. Death march. I have 2 exams left and I still think about dropping out so that I can avoid the career completely. 6 more days until it's all over! Penguins Like Pies fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Apr 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
diospadre posted:SUNK COST FALLACY Hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Penguins Like Pies posted:^^^ Hell, I didn't have a job and I barely managed to care about 3L. Time honoured precedent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
I'm taking every Law & ____ class I can. It's totally hilarious that students think firms will care if they took a bunch of fluff courses or not. Maybe a judge, but firms just check the GPA box and move on. All I want to do is play golf and hit on Public Health students.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
In terms of getting a new job, how important is your GPA after you've been practicing for a couple of years? I'm applying to a couple of jobs that require me to send along an unofficial transcript. I got wonderful grades during my 1L year, but then I stopped giving a poo poo and things went terribly during 2L and 3L.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I'm taking every Law & ____ class I can. It's totally hilarious that students think firms will care if they took a bunch of fluff courses or not. Maybe a judge, but firms just check the GPA box and move on. You've got the right idea. In the UK especially since you can do law as an undergraduate - I knew plenty of people who did modules in tourism, sociology and all that wishy washy liberal crap. At the time I thought they were crazy and nowhere would touch them with a bargepole but they all got easy boosts to their grades while I was slaving away doing difficult subjects. Enjoy!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:In terms of getting a new job, how important is your GPA after you've been practicing for a couple of years? I'm applying to a couple of jobs that require me to send along an unofficial transcript. I got wonderful grades during my 1L year, but then I stopped giving a poo poo and things went terribly during 2L and 3L. After 3 years no one cares about your grades. At about that same time, you school doesn't matter much either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I'm taking every Law & ____ class I can. It's totally hilarious that students think firms will care if they took a bunch of fluff courses or not. Maybe a judge, but firms just check the GPA box and move on. I would take these classes, but they're all writing course and gently caress writing papers. Plus I think I'd get myself in trouble if I took some kind of "Gender oppression and the law" course, or "Critical Legal Theory and the Law" course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Lilosh posted:I would take these classes, but they're all writing course and gently caress writing papers. My only exam my second semester of 3L was a multiple choice exam. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
I think it's still funny that Valparaiso Law is still sending me poo poo that's going to my Spam folder. Wasn't the enrollment deadline like two weeks ago or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
nm posted:How many years? I graduated in 2010, so I'm not quite there yet. Some of the jobs I've applied to have been happy with just a cover letter and resume, and I usually tack along a copy of my latest performance review, but others specifically state that I need to include my transcript with my application materials. For some other places, it depends on the position applied to; the local AG's office only requires a transcript if you are applying to an appellate position. EDIT: maybe I should just fold the transcript in such a way that the first page is all As, and they need to actually open it up and check before they find the Cs. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Apr 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Lilosh posted:I would take these classes, but they're all writing course and gently caress writing papers. Having taken a fair number of these and being a CRT person, I'd have to say that the only way you could get in trouble in those classes is by being a racist or misogynistic douchebag so uh good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Having taken a fair number of these and being a CRT person, I'd have to say that the only way you could get in trouble in those classes is by being a racist or misogynistic douchebag so uh good luck with that. I'm not sure if this is what he meant but many professors who teach such courses are notorious for grading based on a "how much do you agree with me about everything" scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Just makes it easier to get the A.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
On the other side of that coin, every other class is basically "White Dudes & the Law," so hurrah for variety.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Having taken a fair number of these and being a CRT person, I'd have to say that the only way you could get in trouble in those classes is by being a racist or misogynistic douchebag so uh good luck with that. I really doubt he's not taking them because he hates minorities -- more that the subjectivity of a big policy question can be frightening compared to the devil you know. The Warszawa posted:On the other side of that coin, every other class is basically "White Dudes & the Law," so hurrah for variety. What does this even mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Omerta posted:What does this even mean? Two young fish are swimming along one day when an old, wise fish swims up to them. "Evening boys, how's the water?" the old fish says. The younger fish stare at him blankly. After the old fish swims away, one of the young fish turns to the other one and says "what the gently caress is water?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I really doubt he's not taking them because he hates minorities -- more that the subjectivity of a big policy question can be frightening compared to the devil you know. Yeah which is why I was like "yeah you won't get in trouble unless you are those things." He should take those classes! quote:What does this even mean? That the whole concept of these specialized "and the law" classes pretty much derives from the fact that what we consider "straight up law" is designed by and for a privileged subset. Also that the whole purpose of "and the law" classes is to show that there are other legitimate perspectives other than the ones offered as implicitly and totally legitimate because hey that's what they've always been. edit: yeah jmiracle basically has it down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
Not quite the whole purpose; there is the easy A.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That the whole concept of these specialized "and the law" classes pretty much derives from the fact that what we consider "straight up law" is designed by and for a privileged subset. Also that the whole purpose of "and the law" classes is to show that there are other legitimate perspectives other than the ones offered as implicitly and totally legitimate because hey that's what they've always been. Oh cool, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Two young fish are swimming along one day when an old, wise fish swims up to them. "Evening boys, how's the water?" the old fish says. The younger fish stare at him blankly. After the old fish swims away, one of the young fish turns to the other one and says "what the gently caress is water?" I'm emptyquoting this probate me I don't care
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I'm emptyquoting this probate me I don't care I can't do that, you're not a will. The judge is gonna get mad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
I love: The Warszawa posted:That the whole concept of these specialized "and the law" classes pretty much derives from the fact that what we consider "straight up law" is designed by and for a privileged subset. Also that the whole purpose of "and the law" classes is to show that there are other legitimate perspectives other than the ones offered as implicitly and totally legitimate because hey that's what they've always been. This post. J Miracle posted:Two young fish are swimming along one day when an old, wise fish swims up to them. "Evening boys, how's the water?" the old fish says. The younger fish stare at him blankly. After the old fish swims away, one of the young fish turns to the other one and says "what the gently caress is water?" And this post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
People who fluff up anything but their 3L year with bullshit courses can blow me. Pussies. Go big or go home.../bitter
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That the whole concept of these specialized "and the law" classes pretty much derives from the fact that what we consider "straight up law" is designed by and for a privileged subset. Also that the whole purpose of "and the law" classes is to show that there are other legitimate perspectives other than the ones offered as implicitly and totally legitimate because hey that's what they've always been. My bullshit meter started going into overdrive with your posts... Privileged subset? I realise that there will be plenty of people who study law, learn the rules, get the grades and go off to practise or whatever without ever really thinking about the grand scheme of things, but lawyers aren't meant to be social reformers or sit around navel gazing. If a client has a dispute with someone else about who owns a piece of land, or they've committed a crime or whatever, they don't want a treatise on how the law of equity has developed in a way that isn't really that fair to a certain minority. They want a problem fixed - I was going to say that they just want to know what the law is, but most of the time they don't even give a poo poo what the law is they just want to know if you can fix their problem for them. If you're going to be a lawyer, you can't escape learning the law. If people who actually choose to do that are a 'privileged subset' then I hope you're not suggesting that people who choose to avoid learning as much proper law as possible are 'the set' who don't have the 'privilege' of intelligence and a hard work ethic to enable them to study proper law. I'm all for people slacking off to bump up their grades and doing some bullshit courses, but straight up law is more than just the product of a privileged subset. If you can't learn straight up law because you're too distracted thinking about the moral implications of X on group Y then you need to learn to put your personal opinions on the back seat and pull yourself up by those bootstraps or quit and either join the legislature and campaign to get poo poo changed or become a sociology academic and get paid to sit around smoking weed and generally being a subversive pest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
The only problem with this last page is that if you enjoy paying a large fraction of a hundred thousand dollars and an extra year of your life to conclusively prove the law is written by white guys, you deserve to be in law school. They should totally replace Crim Law with a couple of those, though. e: to be fair Warszawa is in the law school whose mission is to supply academics bullshitting about academia to all the other law schools so it might actually be more relevant for him somehow, idk
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
I won't keep posting about it otherwise it'll just piss people off, but I think my problem with those kinds of courses is that they assume that any law written by a white person must automatically be designed to oppress the masses. If you try to disagree, it comes back to the same poo poo that you see on these forums a lot - 'oh but you have invisible privileges that preclude you from seeing how it really is so your opinion isn't valid'. So it ends up being a 'debate' where the supposedly nasty guys who are asserting their privilege by making or interpreting a law can't actually give their own opinions at all and it's just a one-sided feedback loop. Add the fact that those courses tend to attract the people who weren't clever enough to get good grades on the harder subjects (not saying it's true for everyone, but I dare say it's quite a few) and more than anything, the fact that, as a few people here mentioned, those modules are exactly the ones where you will get great marks if you agree with the opinions of whoever is teaching it and terrible marks if you don't. So really it's the bullshit modules which are psuedo intellectual, biased and incapable of looking at things objectively, but which have the cheek to accuse people who are just getting on with poo poo without giving two thoughts to privilege of being the ones who are petty, subjective and somehow wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
I've changed my mind, every law school course should be replaced with them forever
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:My bullshit meter started going into overdrive with your posts... Yo how much of the actual practice of law did you learn in your law school classes? Because I'm betting if you went to a U.S. law school the answer falls somewhere between "none" and laughing hysterically at the idea of learning practical skills in law school. Also, if you don't see law at least as a potential avenue for social reform it seems like you're missing the point, given that whole string of landmark decisions revolving around the rights of minorities in this country over the last 100+ years. Not to mention that plenty of people have causes of action relating to institutional racism and prejudice, and understanding how that works is usually beneficial in advising them how to proceed. None of this actually explains why these courses are bullshit, only that they don't fit with what you think is "proper" for a lawyer to know. Or why you think that choosing to take a class in critical race theory is somehow less valuable than banking law without presupposing that the individual is going to practice banking law (I'll even give you the freebie assumption that the class in banking law in any way resembles the practice of banking law). dos4gw posted:I won't keep posting about it otherwise it'll just piss people off, but I think my problem with those kinds of courses is that they assume that any law written by a white person must automatically be designed to oppress the masses. If you try to disagree, it comes back to the same poo poo that you see on these forums a lot - 'oh but you have invisible privileges that preclude you from seeing how it really is so your opinion isn't valid'. So uh basically if you give a poo poo about persistent institutional oppression and how that manifests in the law then you're "pseudo-intellectual, biased, and incapable of looking at things objectively." The people who have the benefit of "just getting on with poo poo" are generally the ones who reap the rewards of white privilege. God, my day just isn't complete without somebody whining about how hard it is to be white because you might be asked to consider your own biases before telling any minority with a grievance to go gently caress themselves and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Also, you really need to stop conflating "refusing to question privilege" with "objective," since that's sort of the whole point of critical theory - to realize that objectivity in law is pretty much a sham and we're better off for knowing that. Not to mention you keep confusing intent with effect, since you know, a law doesn't have to have racist intent to have racist effect. Look, I've taken my share of black letter classes. I took a hardcore admin-focused Immigration class, I took Fed Courts, and the fluffiest course I've taken as of yet has been a Theories of Statutory Interpretation seminar that I used to focus on an empirical analysis of state statutes brushing up against the '86 IRCA statute's preemption clause. But the constant maligning of courses that actually question the frameworks at play here as either fluff or somehow bigoted against Those Poor loving White People is either malicious or stupid, and I really don't know which way you're playing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:Privileged subset? I realise that there will be plenty of people who study law, learn the rules, get the grades and go off to practise or whatever without ever really thinking about the grand scheme of things, but lawyers aren't meant to be social reformers or sit around navel gazing. dos4gw posted:If you're going to be a lawyer, you can't escape learning the law. If people who actually choose to do that are a 'privileged subset' then I hope you're not suggesting that people who choose to avoid learning as much proper law as possible are 'the set' who don't have the 'privilege' of intelligence and a hard work ethic to enable them to study proper law. dos4gw posted:I'm all for people slacking off to bump up their grades and doing some bullshit courses, but straight up law is more than just the product of a privileged subset. If you can't learn straight up law because you're too distracted thinking about the moral implications of X on group Y then you need to learn to put your personal opinions on the back seat and pull yourself up by those bootstraps or quit and either join the legislature and campaign to get poo poo changed or become a sociology academic and get paid to sit around smoking weed and generally being a subversive pest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
.
Stop fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
Stop posted:dos4gw, I like your bullshit assumption that students who take critical race theory are "not clever to get get grades on harder subjects". We have literally one, taught by a visiting professor, and it will never be offered again. Granted, this school only just made its first tenure offer to a Latino professor in its history this year. But hey, it's real tough being white!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
As I said, I'm all for people taking a few bullshit courses to get their grades up and I did say that not everyone who does them chooses to do so only because they're stupid - if anything I acknowledged that many of them are cleverer (or at least more savvy) in my first post when I admitted that I took the harder subjects, thinking I had to, only to later see people who had padded out their grades with fluff still do fine and making me realise that I was a fool for making it harder on myself. I don't have any problem with the principle of critically analysing what effect laws, and the privilege and status etc. of people who make them, have, but I think that much of what is discussed would be better suited to sociology or criminology. Neither of those subjects have the same authority as the law, which itself is perhaps a problem that needs to be addressed, but my annoyance arises from the fact that they are piggybacking on the respect given to law as a 'hard' subject and trying to legitimise themselves. Which is pretty much what the crux of many accusations against privilege are - that lawyers are either deliberately or unthinkingly putting their own personal prejudices, views and opinions into laws that then have a knock-on effect on people who don't share that privilege. Personally I think that's not how laws are made. I didn't go to a US law school, I'm in the UK, so perhaps things are different but the law school experience sounds very similar in that I didn't really learn much that I would ever use in practice. I guess one potential difference is that in the US, the judiciary is much more politicised, or at least the Supreme Court, whereas here it's independent. I can't speak for the bar and the judiciary as a whole, but of the 7 Supreme Court justices here that I've spoken to enough to know them at least reasonably well, 6 of them were very liberal. That doesn't prove anything, but the mark of a good judge seems to be the ability to decide something fairly and to leave one's own personality and views at the door. As far as lawyers go, we have a split profession here so I can't talk about the whole legal process, but as a barrister you have to take any case that comes along within your expertise, as long as it pays OK. You are independent and you don't get to pick who you represent or let your own personal views and privileges influence how you act. As someone who has respect for people who can do that, I find it ridiculous that there are academics who feel entitled to sit there and behave completely irrationally, capriciously and subjectively in accusing people, who are professionals and just get on with the job, of being biased (consciously or unconsciously) and letting their own privilege affect things. Yes, law school isn't the same as practising law, but it's a necessary hoop to jump through in order to do so, and it ultimately falls under the same umbrella. If law students want easy grades by learning what a particular teacher's prejudices are and playing to that, then I'm more than happy for them to do that, but I don't think those courses have any real legitimacy, and I think that they should really be classified as what they are, for instance the examples I gave before - sociology or criminology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
.
Stop fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
dos4gw posted:As I said, I'm all for people taking a few bullshit courses to get their grades up and I did say that not everyone who does them chooses to do so only because they're stupid - if anything I acknowledged that many of them are cleverer (or at least more savvy) in my first post when I admitted that I took the harder subjects, thinking I had to, only to later see people who had padded out their grades with fluff still do fine and making me realise that I was a fool for making it harder on myself. Why are these courses "bullshit"? Or do you not see how you're (intentionally or unintentionally) undermining the legitimacy of the field of study because it doesn't meet your hidden and arbitrary standards for difficulty? I mean, I get civ pro and fed courts in a way that I don't get, say, property, but does that make civ pro courses "bullshit"? And why shouldn't the effect of privilege and status on laws be discussed among people who will practice law? Isn't that the only way to remove or mitigate their effects? Are lawyers superhuman beings of cognizance and fortitude who can purge themselves of their entire social context at will? The whole point of what you're calling bullshit is that people either don't or can't divorce their actions as lawyers or judges from their social context. It's not so simple that they can just "leave their views at the door," because their society informs their actions and often carries with it prejudices against Pakistani people or African-Americans or other minority groups. Refusing to engage with this is very much an exercise of privilege, because the privileged group doesn't have to care - they do just fine under the status quo. Why do lawyers get a pass on supporting or ignoring institutional racism and prejudice because they're "just getting on with the job." Why are these critiques illegitimate? I mean, I get that you don't give a gently caress about privilege as it affects law, and that's a luxury you probably take for granted, but why is the pursuit of understanding and remedying it, even among those just sort of getting along without thinking about the consequences of their conduct, inherently bullshit? The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Apr 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 10:40
|
|