← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 13904 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2004-05-27
2004-05-27 01:35 | User Profile
OD Lawyers:
I'm trying to make a final decision about going to law school this fall.
Having done some research and talked to several lawyers, it seems that one's class rank pretty much determines one's career prospects, at least initially, in the legal profession.
So, with that in mind, I would like to ask OD's lawyers this question: what is the key to success in law school and making outstanding grades on law exams?
I downloaded some law exams from the Harvard Law School web site (no, that's not where I will be going), and it seems that these exams basically require the student to write essays analyzing hypothetical legal problems.
OK, I can deal with that.
But here's the problem.
One lawyer I talked to told me that grades in law school are all based on "relative" performance. He said that in law school everybody is reasonably intelligent, everybody studies, and everybody knows the law, but that none of those things mean jack for grading purposes. He said that if 90% of the class writes a better exam than you, you score in the bottom 10% no matter how much you know about the law.
So given that one's job prospects depend on class rank, and one's class rank depends on exam performance, I am wondering exactly what you have to do to separate yourself from the pack on these law exams and move yourself toward the right side of the bell curve?
I'd greatly appreciate any insight anyone can offer.
Thanks very much.
2004-05-27 02:06 | User Profile
I don't think that grading by using a distributon adjusted such that certain numbers of students falls into each category is law-school-only thing.
2004-05-27 02:33 | User Profile
A piece of advice:
Practice doing as many exams as you can: your law school library (if they're not on-line) should have old exams -- do them all!!!
Secondly, notes, notes, notes: get your hands on all sorts of old class notes that should be in circulation (in my neck of the woods they were called "cans"). They're worth their weight in gold.
In first year I spent hours upon hours upon hours reading boring case law up in the library -- it did zilch for me. The discovery of old class notes (with case summaries, etc. Remember, in any Supreme Court decision you only need to know a few things, i.e., you dont need to meditate for hours on the dissent and partial dissent...blah...blah...blah...zzzzzzzzzzz...you don't need to know more about the dissent than the instructor says in class) and how they can be used in combination with your own class notes did marvels for me.
Any way, more later.
2004-05-27 03:10 | User Profile
Law exams go like this: you sit down in the testing room and are handed a several-pages-long story. This is what they call "the fact pattern." At the end of the fact pattern (always a fictional creation with names like "Bill Plimpton, the President" or "Moanica Slewsky", ha ha), the direction will say something like, "Please discuss the liability of all parties, and what rights they have against all other parties." Your task is to then write a responsive essay that does just that. You use the "IRAC" system: Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion.
What separates a good answer from a mediocre one is identifying all the legal issues raised (something you can only do if you know all the law) and applying them in a crisply organized way to the facts you've been given.
The truth is that some folks can do this better than others. But like racial reality, the patterns come to dominate: the students who do well in one class tend to do well in the others, and the class rank shakes out accordingly.
First step to success is to attend every class (this ain't like college --- no skipping) and take notes like a mofo. Then create your outline --- that's the basic points of the class, though the "outline" can sometimes be as long as 40 or 50 pages. Know it, live it. If you don't get something, wrestle it through with the professor's help until you do.
Sometimes the law library will have winning law exams for your perusal. Good ones are not beautiful literature and are actually quite mechanical. Sort of like a math equation, only in English.
Also, it doesn't hurt to take one of those classes where they teach you exam-writing tips. I took one and it did help.
2004-05-28 00:40 | User Profile
Probably not, that's true. But my percerption is that class rank is not as important grad students. If you're on the Ph.D track, the quality of your work is what matters most, not your position relative to other students. And least, that's what I've always assumed.
[QUOTE=madrussian]I don't think that grading by using a distributon adjusted such that certain numbers of students falls into each category is law-school-only thing.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-28 00:51 | User Profile
Hugh and friedrich,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. There are books out there that claim to tell you what you need to know to succeed in law school, but I'd rather get the scoop from actual lawyers.
As for using canned notes, is that the same thing as Gilbert law summaries and other case law summaries? I understand you can buy those, but one person told me not to use them. He said it was more effective to write your own summaries.
2004-05-28 04:25 | User Profile
I'm no lawyer, but here's some info I think belongs on a pawyer prep thread.
If you have some time, go to court and watch a few cases. A good lawyer works like an artist. As a student, you have a great opportunity to hang out at the courts. Some people do that as a hobby.
Check the US Dept of Labor regarding outlook and what type of law you are looking into.
If you look at some actual ads, some lawyers wages are incredibly low, compared to much lower skilled jobs. There's a lot of competition out there. IMO, you need to be there because you love what it involves and are good at the skills involved, not for power or money...those people become personal injury or crooked politicians.
You can also "read the law" and study with a practicing lawyer, without going to law school. That might be an option.
[url]http://www.abanet.org/education.html[/url] [url]http://www.abanet.org/legaled/prelaw/prep.html[/url] [url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/read_lst.php[/url] [url]http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm[/url]
2004-05-28 12:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Valley Forge OD Lawyers:
I'm trying to make a final decision about going to law school this fall.[/QUOTE]
Do it. From what I've seen you have what it takes and more.
[QUOTE]Having done some research and talked to several lawyers, it seems that one's class rank pretty much determines one's career prospects, at least initially, in the legal profession.[/QUOTE]
It matters a lot in getting that first job, and the first job is very, very important IF you're going to go the law firm route. If you're planning on hanging out your own shingle, going into government work (a good place to start, consider well the DA, PD, and even miliatry JAG, I personally got a lot of invaluable trial experience with the PD), it doesn't matter so much.
But if you're hoping to get into a top law firm, work your testes off for 7 years and then make a million bucks a year as a full partner (yes, they make that much), then you need top grades at a top school. You see, those big NY firms make their money based on their attorney profile that's published by a company called [URL=http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/home.xml]Martindale Hubble[/URL]. Look at the resumes of some of the top firms like Shearman & Sterling or Skadden Arps or Squire Sanders & Dempsey, and you'll see that they all went to one of the top 10 laws schools (and then most went to either Harvard or Yale), they published all sorts of articles in scholarly reviews, were editors of the law review in law school, and so forth and so on. This stems from the "due diligence" thing that businesses have to deal with. A board member of executive could wind up personally liable for bad business decisions IF he wasn't "duly diligent" in performing his or her duties. That is, executives are in hot water when deals go bad only if they didn't do their homework. So, executives need to cover their asses on this homework issue, and they do that by spending stockholder money paying white shoe law firms $600/hour to review deals, offer advice, handle litigation, and so forth. The value of that "ass covering" is directly proportional to the law firm's credentials.
For example, if I'm an executive at Enron and I buy a coal fired plant in Peoria that goes completely south on some legal sand bar, then I'm in trouble IF AND ONLY IF I DID NOT DO my homework. If I did my homework - i.e. if I did my "due diligence" in legalese - then I'm not going to lose my mansion in West Palm Beach in some shareholder lawsuit.
So, imagine that the deal goes south because it was built on a toxic waste site, and some lawyer got drunk the night before the thing closed and forgot to tell you about the Superfund Law. The stockholders say "well, who advised you on that matter and missed the fact that we needed to clean up a toxic waste site by law" you the exective want to be able to say "Look! I hired Skadden Arps! All their lawyers went to Yale!! Most of them were editors of the law review!!! Attorney Smith wrote a Yale law review article on toxic waste sites!!!! I did my homework, don't sue me, SUE SKADDEN ARPS! They have enormous liability insurance that can cover the judgement!!!!"
Now imagine that he said "I hired Walter Yannis! He graduated at the bottom of his class at Podunk night law school!! He never handled a toxic waste case before in his life!!! He's a famous wino!! He's broke, doesn't carry insurance, and is judgement proof. Don't sue me and recover million, sue Yannis and recover nothing!!!"
You get the picture. Nearly the entire value of a law firm's capital is tied up in its goodwill and image. And that means having the best Martindale Hubble profile you can, and so if you're not planning to graduate from a top 20 school, keep it in mind.
I just zipped over to MH, and just as an example offer you this attorney CV ( leave the name and a few other facts blank):
[QUOTE]__, (Partner) born ___, California, 1959; admitted to bar, 1984, California and U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; 1988, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; 1989, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; 1994, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. Education: University of California at Berkeley (A.B., with highest honors, 1981); University of California at Hastings (J.D., cum laude, 1984). Member, Thurston Honor Society. Member, 1982-1983 and Editor, 1983-1984, Hastings Law Journal. Member: Bar Association of San Francisco; American Bar Association (Member, Sections on: Litigation and Law Practice Management). Practice Areas: Litigation. Send an Email [/QUOTE]
And that's just a random thing, and there are far more impressive CVs than that. You see that making partner in a big firm is not so easy. This lawyer (a woman) no doubt makes more money than most of our people can even imagine.
So, it really depends on what you're going to do. What do you see as your future legal career? Will you move to one of the financial centers (especially NYC) or will you stay local? If local, how provincial? How important is money to you? Do you understand the trade off that is usually required between making a million per year at a top law firm and your personal life (you won't have one, and will certainly wind up divorced and miserable, but rich!)
My advice would be to start trying to imagine those things now.
[QUOTE]So, with that in mind, I would like to ask OD's lawyers this question: what is the key to success in law school and making outstanding grades on law exams?[/QUOTE]
First, let me say that HL and FB have excellent points, especially this from FB
[QUOTE]Practice doing as many exams as you can: your law school library (if they're not on-line) should have old exams -- do them all!!! [/QUOTE]
Damend straight. You get good at what you practice doing, and practicing on old exams is really the thing.
Since I'm just haning out waiting for the phone to ring, I'll be like one of my law school profs and just drone on and on and on.
M'kah?
There are two points to keep in mind.
First, grades are based on test results, and then usually the grade is heavily weighted to the semester (or year) final exam. So, my advice is to focus from day one on the final, and don't get distracted from that.
The tests are usually fact situations that you are required to analyze and (most importantly) WRITE about under extreme time pressure. In order to do that you need two things (1) you need to have memorized the so-called "black letter law", which are basically the rules on the subject, and (2) you need to have the kind of mind that can spot legal issues arising from the facts given in the test and analyze them clearly and conscisely in writing.
As to (2), I really think that it's something a guy or gal is just born with, and while practice can improve anybody's performance, if you find that you don't have that talent then chuck the whole legal idea right away. Get an MBA or CPA credential. From what I've seen, though, as I said I think you have "it."
As to (1), there are several points to keep in mind here. First, law school professors are mostly egomaniacs who like nothing better than listening to themselves talk. A lot of them really care deeply about their subjects, and most wrote scholarly articles on this or that aspect of the subject. Heck, some of them even wrote the textbooks you'll be forced to purchase. But very often (although not always) they LECTURE on the issues they think are just sooooo interesting but that has nothing to do with the FINAL, which covers only the black letter law.
So, you need to do two things. First, concentrate from day one on learning - and I mean MEMORIZING COLD - the black letter law. Now, law schools are very much into the Socratic case study method, which means that you're supposed to read dozens of cases and then extract a rule (or rules) from each of them. Then you talk about in class about how the court arrived at the decision, reasoning and so forth. Then you're supposed to make an outline of all of that and thereby learn the black letter law in a deep and meaningful way. While all of that's swell, I found that I just didn't have time for it. But don't fear, there is help on the way! An entire industry has grown up around helping law students learn on their own that which their professors don't teach them. There are commercial outlines like Gilbert, Black Letter Law Series, Emmanuel, which include questions and answers and practice exams. These are indispensible. I also recommen purchasing the Law in a Flash flash cards, which are a great way to MEMORIZE (and don't forget, you need to have all of that at your fingertips in the exam) the black letter law.
Here's a [URL=http://www.lawbookshop.com/law_student.htm]link[/URL] that shows you the various products available.
The general policy should be to spend less time reading cases, and more time boning up on the black letter law. There are commercial case briefs you can buy. While you should try to read all the cases, I think that the general experience is that there's only so much time. If you find you're stuggling to keep up, read less cases and focus on memorizing the black letter law.
What I'm trying to say is that a balance has to be reaced between the Socratic ideal and the harsh realities of One Freeking L.
My system was generally as follows. Buy the Law in a Flash flash cards and begin reviewing them every day from day one. This will help you memorize the basic rules, and you must have them memorized cold by exam time. Also purchase one of the commercial outlines for each course, where possible (you're pretty much covered for years 1 & 2), and begin reading that right away. Record all the lectures (maybe you won't have to do that but I'm really bad at taking notes, just can't do it). Then, make your own outline based on those sources. Usually the commercial outlines contain a diskette with an electronic version, so you can just use that as the basis for your own outline. Be sure to note well the professor's favourite little sayings.
In fact, here's a really helpful tip that will improve your grade every time: remember that your professor is an egomaniac in love with his or her own voice. Play on that. Be sure to identify their pet points (maybe a word, phrase, aphorism) into your outline, and use them if possible on the final exam. They love it, and even if the test was otherwise dodgy you'd be amazed what a little anonymous flattery can accomplish.
I[QUOTE] downloaded some law exams from the Harvard Law School web site (no, that's not where I will be going), and it seems that these exams basically require the student to write essays analyzing hypothetical legal problems.[/QUOTE]
That's right. Buy the Gilbert outline for Property (by famed professor Jesse Dukminier). Read it, and try a few of the practice tests.
[QUOTE]One lawyer I talked to told me that grades in law school are all based on "relative" performance. He said that in law school everybody is reasonably intelligent, everybody studies, and everybody knows the law, but that none of those things mean jack for grading purposes. He said that if 90% of the class writes a better exam than you, you score in the bottom 10% no matter how much you know about the law.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't my experience. I have to say, however, that you shouldn't expect grade inflation. Getting a B in One L is pretty damned good.
I hope that helped.
By the way, if you have a technical background, you might consider becoming a patent attorney. These people lead very boring lives that usually end in suicide, but man do they ever pull down the jack.
If not, then I suggest that you consider taking electives (as I did) in business law and tax. In fact, if you're going to do it, get either an LLM in Tax or an MBA in Finance as part of a combined program. Your practice will be mind-numbingly dull and you'll probably end your days as a disillusioned, broken down alcoholic, divorced and abandoned by your family, wallowing in middle aged cynicism and resentment even as your kids curse your name as they ask your for money, but man the sky's the limit as far as the eagle sh*t is concerned!!!
(Just kidding)
But seriously, I say go for it!!!!!
2004-05-28 18:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]For example, if I'm an executive at Enron and I buy a coal fired plant in Peoria that goes completely south on some legal sand bar, then I'm in trouble IF AND ONLY IF I DID NOT DO my homework. If I did my homework - i.e. if I did my "due diligence" in legalese - then I'm not going to lose my mansion in West Palm Beach in some shareholder lawsuit. [/QUOTE]
Always wondered what the corporate guys did.
Of course, the lawyers behind these shareholders suits --- many of which are pretty dubious --- are often Jewish. Natch. "Protecting the integrity of the markets," they say. Or lining up their gold is more like it.
If we're not overloading you here, I would second the advice to buy a commerical outline. But by no means should you use this as a substitute for class notes, though.
I'd also say you're right about the relativity of class position. At the end of the road, there is a student in first place, and so on right down to the student in last place. If you aren't in the top ten percent of a mid-range law school, you have little hope of a job at a big NYC firm. For more prestigious schools like Columbia or Stanford, you can drop to top quarter or top half and still be in the running.
But even if your law school is very modest, don't let that kill your plan. You can still get on with government (local, the feds like prestige) or smaller or mid-size firms throughout the country. Maybe even a solo practitioner looking to hire someone on. Think about what area of law you'd like to get into and start specializing in that early. That way, you can make the case for yourself as a would-be prosecutor for Smith County. (Yale Law School folks don't have to do this, of course, 'cause anyone will take them anytime.) Also, trial law (which has NOTHING to do with what is taught in law school) is its own art, and often handled better by folksier guys with not-so-prestige backgrounds who can talk to juries (but remember that trial lawyers constitute only some three percent of all lawyers).
As for loving what you do, well, most lawyers don't. It's sometimes interesting and there is the potential for lots of money (though not as much as would be had in business --- CEOs and I-bankers laugh at even the biggest partner salary, which pales in comparison), but mostly it's just good to know the law and be licensed to practice it. That's where the power is. We need our people in power.
2004-05-28 18:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Hugh Lincoln]Always wondered what the corporate guys did. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, we spend our lives covering our a$$es. Paper everything. Wake up in the middle of the night wondering if you copied the right guy on an email, or whether the some paper got filed on time. Man, I'm sick of it.
What's your practice like?
[QUOTE]Of course, the lawyers behind these shareholders suits --- many of which are pretty dubious --- are often Jewish. Natch. "Protecting the integrity of the markets," they say. Or lining up their gold is more like it.[/QUOTE]
No doubt about it. This is I think the emotional motivator behind my campaign against the corporate organizational form. The corporation separates management from control while limiting liability, and it thereby creates an environmental niche for high-middle bureaucrats who are adept at siphoning of $$$ while covering their a$$es.
Sound like somebody might like that situation?
It's custom made for the Tribe to infiltrate and take over.
And that's exactly what's happened.
[QUOTE]If we're not overloading you here, I would second the advice to buy a commerical outline. But by no means should you use this as a substitute for class notes, though.[/QUOTE]
Ditto, although I repeat that the key to doing well is to learn the black letter law and having that down so cold that you don't have to even think about it on an exam.
Throwing in a few of your professor's witticisms doesn't hurt, either.
[QUOTE]I'd also say you're right about the relativity of class position. At the end of the road, there is a student in first place, and so on right down to the student in last place. If you aren't in the top ten percent of a mid-range law school, you have little hope of a job at a big NYC firm. For more prestigious schools like Columbia or Stanford, you can drop to top quarter or top half and still be in the running. [/QUOTE]
Ditto. Actually, so much is decided by the LSAT. If you get into a top school, then you have a shot at the $1 million/year partnership at a top firm.
[QUOTE]But even if your law school is very modest, don't let that kill your plan. You can still get on with government (local, the feds like prestige) or smaller or mid-size firms throughout the country. Maybe even a solo practitioner looking to hire someone on. Think about what area of law you'd like to get into and start specializing in that early. That way, you can make the case for yourself as a would-be prosecutor for Smith County. (Yale Law School folks don't have to do this, of course, 'cause anyone will take them anytime.) Also, trial law (which has NOTHING to do with what is taught in law school) is its own art, and often handled better by folksier guys with not-so-prestige backgrounds who can talk to juries (but remember that trial lawyers constitute only some three percent of all lawyers).[/QUOTE]
Ditto again. The thing is to find something you like that also makes good $$$$. I find that mixing it up is important. I always saw myself as a free lancer. Oftentimes I'll wind up working basically full time for a single client for a extended periods until some deal or such has finished, then I move on. I like it that way. Coming up to the end now of a really dull one, but the money was okay. Not great, but okay.
I'm working up my courage to make a jump into white collar criminal defense - that should keep the blood circulating and get me away from the corporate dweebs I'm stuck with now.
I liked criminal defense. Meet the most interesting people in that line of work.
[QUOTE]As for loving what you do, well, most lawyers don't.[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
[QUOTE]It's sometimes interesting and there is the potential for lots of money (though not as much as would be had in business --- CEOs and I-bankers laugh at even the biggest partner salary, which pales in comparison), but mostly it's just good to know the law and be licensed to practice it[/QUOTE].
Ditto again. The real money is made by the entrepreneurs who dream it up and do it, and then hire us legal beagles to clean up their poop after the fact. That said, I got a piece of a couple of deals, and while it was chump change to the principals it sure felt nice when it hit the old bank account.
[QUOTE]That's where the power is. We need our people in power.[/QUOTE]
Yes!!!!! :thumbsup:
We all need to get in there and rise as "high and inside" as our talents and luck will take us. While all honest work is honorable and good, the fact remains that we need racially aware whites in as many key positions as we can. The law is one of the gates to such positions. A high powered MBA in Finance is another, as is becoming a CPA and moving up in one of the Big Four or through the corporate ranks in a big company.
As I said, just dreaming up a business idea and making it happen is best of all.
But move up we must.
So, go for it my young comrade.
2004-05-28 21:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What's your practice like?[/QUOTE]
Tort litigation.
If you ever read "Urban Law 101" in American Renaissance, a great cover story a few months back, that guy's experiences match a lot of my own, though my situation is different. What he says about the urban pathologies of blacks and others fueling a lot of the caseload in America is exactly right. Really, in my line of work, you're uniquely positioned to see down (black and Hispanic incompatability with whites creating havoc for the system) and up (Jews making a killing off it). The patterns are so predictable.
2004-05-28 21:52 | User Profile
Practice/specialty choices: [url]http://www.lexisone.com/legalresearch/legalguide/practice_areas/practice_areas_index.htm[/url]
2004-05-28 22:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Hugh and friedrich,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. There are books out there that claim to tell you what you need to know to succeed in law school, but I'd rather get the scoop from actual lawyers.
As for using canned notes, is that the same thing as Gilbert law summaries and other case law summaries? I understand you can buy those, but one person told me not to use them. He said it was more effective to write your own summaries.[/QUOTE]
No. I'm talking about old class notes. You have instructors who keep giving the same course for twenty years.
They're especially useful in courses such as "Contracts" where the law does not evolve very fast; hence, old class notes are not a problem. Tax law might be problematic because law moves very fast on tax issues, but even here there are timeless, fundamental cases. Anyway, for an introductory tax course it should not be a problem. Read those cases that are not mentioned in your canned notes.
I would usually have 4 to 5 sets of notes for every course.
A little anecdote, I took "Trusts" in 3rd year and had to read about 60 cases (even if you did that Herculean task you would not remember them at the end of semester) plus the textbook, I was desperate for good notes but could not find anything of real value. I was sweating bullets and panicking. Finally, mid-semester, a buddy saved my life by lending me beautiful canned notes (so that I could make photocopies): impeccable, complete class notes and case summaries (about 300 typed pages in length). I had tears in my eyes and thanking the Lord. The entire course was right there in front of me -- word for word. All I needed to know for my 100 % exam was in those notes. I read those notes plus three other inferior sets of canned notes and I was ready for my exam.
2004-05-29 05:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Tort litigation.
If you ever read "Urban Law 101" in American Renaissance, a great cover story a few months back, that guy's experiences match a lot of my own, though my situation is different. What he says about the urban pathologies of blacks and others fueling a lot of the caseload in America is exactly right. Really, in my line of work, you're uniquely positioned to see down (black and Hispanic incompatability with whites creating havoc for the system) and up (Jews making a killing off it). The patterns are so predictable.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I read that article, thought it was great.
I know what you mean.
I did a stint with the PD in a big city shortly after law school. The great majority of my clients were Mexicans and blacks, I guess it goes without saying.
The "Bell Curve" just makes so much sense from the perspective of a gentile white public defender. Of course, most people who wind up in the criminal justice system regardless of race suffer from low IQ. I met some very dull whites in that job, but also some highly intelligent ones who were just troubled (alchol, drugs, drunk driving). But the blacks and browns in the "system" were nearly to a man just painfully dumb. And "dumb" means low impulse control - a term often bandied about in the criminal justice system.
So, Pedro and his homies are kickin' it and they run out of beer. So, they all just go get some beer by walking into a liquor store and taking it and walking out. The so-called "beer run" crime. I'd talk to these Mexicans about this, often in my broken Spanish, and they never really could say exactly why they did it, except that "well, we needed the beer." No thought at all of the consequences.
I remember once I had a young Mexican woman as a client who was charged with mugging an elderly lady (I think also Mexican) at one of their Mexican flea markets. Basically hit her and ran off with her purse. I explained her rights to her, and asked if she understood. She looked at me like a deer frozen in the headlights, and put on a brave smile as to say "yeah, I really am not brain dead" but then I looked into her black eyes and saw the vacant space behind them. She was just dumb, dumb, dumb. Really, I mean, the poor kid. She had the mental age of a five year old, and needed to be taken care of by an extended Mexican family. Married off, making her tortillas and beans in some adobe village in Sonora. She would have been far happier there, and we could be shut of her. Instead she wound up warehoused in some state sponsored sh*thole.
It was like talking to a naughty white seven year old. "Why did you eat your sister's ice cream bar?" "Well, um, daddy, um, because - it was there?"
And blacks are as a group significantly dumber than Mexicans, who generally I think could form a decent lower working class in Mexico provided that they are allowed to impose their own social controls (that was actually half the problem. If we could somehow have left them alone, they would have regulated most of that themselves. I read somewhere that ruling Mexicans is like herding cats, an apt analogy). And from my experience it really is true that blacks are just more prone to mindless lashing out. They evolved on the savannahs of Africa, and are gentically pre-programmed with a hair trigger. It's just so EVIDENT in blacks. Stimulus - response. Stimulus - response. The Mexicans aren't like that so much, having evolved in the Eurasian plan and then in the harsh climate of North America. The Mexicans ain't real bright as a group, but they're not nearly as impulsive as Africans, as a group.
The Mexicans are a true improvement over the blacks, but that begs the question of why in the hell we need them in the first place (we don't!).
You know, you touch on a legal issue that the Bell Curve supports but was never really made explicit in that book. One of the pillars of the Common Law is the "reasonable man" concept. That is, for the non-lawyers here, the notion that there is a sort of average Joe out there who is acting with normal regard to the rights of others, and everybody is expected to act up to that standard.
But the Bell Curve shows that the average white Joe will have far different notions of reasonable behaviour than will Tyrell or Hector. The system is therefore trying to live a lie - it's trying to fit the white standard onto groups that it just doesn't fit, but since the system can't admit to differences between human groups, it puts itself through all sorts of contortions in order to de facto impose a double standard while de jure asserting equal justice before the law.
This is really what converted me to nationalism, I think. I realized at some point that we really are different to such a degree that we can't hope to share a polity that insists on imposing a single standard on all. The Mexicans will do just fine in Mexico, I'm sure. We can trade with them, and we'll all stay fed and clothed. The blacks need to go to Africa, but they won't be able to care for themselves like the Mexicans. They'll always be a cross for us to bear.
I could only take so much of the PD life, although it did offer some thrills and spills. I liked the sporting aspect of it - the DA's were mostly ill-prepared, and a little research and some clever arguments could often win the day.
Walter
2004-05-29 09:02 | User Profile
VF: I should add that one of the best experiences I had in law school was a semester full time externship with a trial court.
I helped out with the law and motions calendar. This was invaluable training in the nuts and bolts of the lawyer's craft. Reading legal arguments, researching answers, writing memoranda on the same - and all under considerable time pressure.
You might consider it. I did my stint at a trial court, largely for logistical reasons. But if you can swing it, try to get into a state or federal appellate court, or maybe even your state supreme court.
Also, some of my fellows did a semester of legal clinic, which is basically practicing law under a law school prof. for poor people, and found it helpful. That really wasn't for me, though.
Both of those look really good on a resume when you start your job hunt.
Walter
2004-05-29 09:36 | User Profile
Key to Success in Law School?
Be a filthy, lying, money-grubbing jew -- that is the key to success in Amerikwa today.
US law has been irrevocably jewed.
2004-05-29 13:33 | User Profile
Man, what a mind-numbing experience the law school must be. Taking all that shit hoping to make good coin afterwards. I'd rather be a dentist.
2004-05-29 13:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Man, what a mind-numbing experience the law school must be. Taking all that shit hoping to make good coin afterwards. I'd rather be a dentist.[/QUOTE]
Dental school is supposed to be hell on Earth.
Seriously.
I think that dentistry would be as boring as tax law, and that's saying something.
Walter
2004-05-29 22:51 | User Profile
Many thanks for the feedback gentleman.
Please don't take my lack of response as ingratitude; it's only indicative of reflection.
2004-05-29 22:56 | User Profile
Well, MR, if I don't go to law school, my plan at this point is to plow ahead and finish a second Bachelor's degree (in computer science and biology), and then go on to grad school to do work in the field of genetic programming.
I don't care about money so much as giving myself options, especially the option to do interesting work that can't be outsourced very easily.
And by that standard, I think tax law qualifies. I don't know if any programming job does.
[QUOTE=madrussian]Man, what a mind-numbing experience the law school must be. Taking all that shit hoping to make good coin afterwards. I'd rather be a dentist.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-30 00:23 | User Profile
You might be surprised at the interesting doors opened with a biology degree: medical-related, environmental services, toxicology, forensic medicine, vet science, etc. Even if the job doesn't involve science, people like that degree for so reason at interviews. Health-related jobs don't get outsourced. And now, with the terror threat of WMD, there are new avenues for biochem specialist, like Stanley Goodspeed, of The Rock.
2004-05-31 18:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]One of the pillars of the Common Law is the "reasonable man" concept. That is, for the non-lawyers here, the notion that there is a sort of average Joe out there who is acting with normal regard to the rights of others, and everybody is expected to act up to that standard.
But the Bell Curve shows that the average white Joe will have far different notions of reasonable behaviour than will Tyrell or Hector. The system is therefore trying to live a lie - it's trying to fit the white standard onto groups that it just doesn't fit, but since the system can't admit to differences between human groups, it puts itself through all sorts of contortions in order to de facto impose a double standard while de jure asserting equal justice before the law.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. This certainly rings through tort law. Jurors are asked whether some condition was reasonably safe, or whether the defendants acted "reasonably." This fairly screams out for a social standard that requires some uniformity within a population. Otherwise, the law loses what is supposed to be one of its greatest virtues --- its predictive power. Enhancement of legal legitimacy comes from the knowledge that a given set of facts will probably result in a given decision by a judge or a jury. We have lost that, however. Taking a case to a jury is a complete crapshoot. You could have six Hispanics who all think NOTHING is reasonable if it hurt one of their own. That's not "law" (which derives from "lie," as in "lie down," as in "settled"), that's anarchy. This has implications even for the filing of the suits: Hispanics often don't think of the money sources they seek as coming from them, but from "the white system." So, they carry "moral hazard," as they say.
Same for criminal law. Police dealing Tyrone have a different situation from the police dealing with Edward. It's unfair to apply the same Fourth Amendment standard to both of them. And when you do, it necessarily drops to Tyrone's level. Thus hurting the rest of us.
2004-06-01 00:03 | User Profile
AOR, I agree biology is a great degree. People seem to like it, and the material is absolutely fascinating. When I first started doing work for my second Bachelor's I was doing CS/math, but I switched to biology for the reasons you mention.
[QUOTE=All Old Right]You might be surprised at the interesting doors opened with a biology degree: medical-related, environmental services, toxicology, forensic medicine, vet science, etc. Even if the job doesn't involve science, people like that degree for so reason at interviews. Health-related jobs don't get outsourced. And now, with the terror threat of WMD, there are new avenues for biochem specialist, like Stanley Goodspeed, of The Rock.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-01 05:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]AOR, I agree biology is a great degree. People seem to like it, and the material is absolutely fascinating. When I first started doing work for my second Bachelor's I was doing CS/math, but I switched to biology for the reasons you mention.[/QUOTE]
If you have a technical background you could make simply unholy amounts of filthy lucre as a biotech patent attorney.
Partners at the top IP firms in Silicon Valley easily make $1 million/year.
Of course, you'd have to get into a top law school and then get good grades throughout. Also, those guys (and tragically gals) have no life outside of work, and burn out fast, but you could make several million and then do a strategic exit.
Walter