Page 5 of 5

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:46 am
by dresden doll
ToTransferOrNot wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
doyleoil wrote:
dresden doll wrote:I would like to interrupt the serious business that is this thread to thank Regionality for the link. Well played.
seriously - i don't know how i managed to find time to laugh what with all the RIGOR - but somehow it happened
You laughed rigorously. That's how!
Ok ok, enough you two--back in your corners for your exam studying. Gogo. You have 4 whole exams this quarter--like every law student at every other law school ever has their first semester. FEEL THE RIGOR!!
:( Why you gotta be so cruel (i.e. rigorous)?

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:48 am
by ToTransferOrNot
I didn't used to be rigorous, but then I transferred to UChicago and it taught me to vigorously apply myself in my endeavors.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:49 am
by Mr. T6
Carried away.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:00 am
by omega_watts
Wow

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:01 am
by Regionality
Delete due to mulligan.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:02 am
by Mr. T6
Nah, I just got a little carried away. You know how you can get carried away with your prose sometimes? I didn't like Law School. This isn't an uncommon feeling.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:06 am
by Tautology
Mr. T6 wrote:Nah, I just got a little carried away. You know how you can get carried away with your prose sometimes? I didn't like Law School. This isn't an uncommon feeling.
If you're really unhappy, seeing a psychologist can really be helpful. If nothing else, it can be really nice to have someone you can talk to completely honestly and openly who will listen. There's nothing wrong with going to see one, it's not like you have to be clinically depressed or have some serious mental problem to benefit from someone to talk to and to get honest feedback from.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:08 am
by dresden doll
I heart Tautology's screen name.

I am now obscenely tempted to start it up: CLS is CLS. Chi is Chi. Chi isn't CLS. CLS isn't Chi.

(Okay, I'll stop now.)

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:23 am
by JollyGreenGiant
Wowza. I see someone didn't enjoy Chicago.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:25 am
by Tofu
dresden doll wrote:I heart Tautology's screen name.

I am now obscenely tempted to start it up: CLS is CLS. Chi is Chi. Chi isn't CLS. CLS isn't Chi.

(Okay, I'll stop now.)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=117381

!!!

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:33 am
by Regionality
Tofu wrote:
dresden doll wrote:I heart Tautology's screen name.

I am now obscenely tempted to start it up: CLS is CLS. Chi is Chi. Chi isn't CLS. CLS isn't Chi.

(Okay, I'll stop now.)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=117381

!!!
Redundant is redundant.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:43 am
by clintonius

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:44 am
by Tofu
Regionality wrote:
Tofu wrote:
dresden doll wrote:I heart Tautology's screen name.

I am now obscenely tempted to start it up: CLS is CLS. Chi is Chi. Chi isn't CLS. CLS isn't Chi.

(Okay, I'll stop now.)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=117381

!!!
Redundant is redundant.
oh ahah whoops didn't read page 4

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:48 am
by Tautology
Seriously, am I gonna end up disrupting every thread I participate in from now on?

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 2:03 am
by dresden doll
Tautology wrote:Seriously, am I gonna end up disrupting every thread I participate in from now on?
Disruptive posters are disruptive. That's all I know.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:08 am
by jive_bird44
Chicago has a higher general level of "law schoolishness" than most every other law school. People at low ranked schools are (generally) too stupid to know they are screwed and people at top 9 schools are (generally) smart enought to know they are set for life. Chicago people have a combination of both.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:49 am
by ToTransferOrNot
jive_bird44 wrote:Chicago has a higher general level of "law schoolishness" than most every other law school. People at low ranked schools are (generally) too stupid to know they are screwed and people at top 9 schools are (generally) smart enought to know they are set for life. Chicago people have a combination of both.
Useless poster is useless.

This statement is based on... what, again? Your knowledge of what goes on in lower ranked schools? Because at Wisconsin, pretty much everyone knew that if they weren't toward the top of the class, they were screwed. All of the transfers from other schools say exactly the same thing about the environments they transferred out of. All of the 2L transfers I knew at Wisconsin last year said the same thing about the environments they transferred out of. The two groups combined represents a fairly broad range of schools.

People at "Top 9" (lol what kind of cutoff is that) are not necessarily set for life, especially in this economy. Putting aside the obvious problems of no offers and "indefinite deferrals," being below median puts you at risk, even at CCN, right now. Further, people at all of these schools still aim for clerkships.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:00 am
by swampthang
miamiman wrote:Not that I really care if OP chooses Chicago or Columbia, but isn't it somewhat ridiculous to think that Chicago is any more intense right now than any other law school in the country?

You really think Michigan kids are throwing back beers, burning blunts, and shooting darts more often than kids at other T10s?
Funny, cuz this was actually my experience at UChi ASW. Went out drinking and dancing till 4, got back to my host's place and he wasted no time in rolling a fattie. I felt that any preconceptions I had held about the place were instantly shattered.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:32 pm
by jive_bird44
This statement is based on... what, again? [/quote]

The fact that I've attended two different law schools too.

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 3:13 pm
by dresden doll
jive_bird44 wrote:This statement is based on... what, again?
The fact that I've attended two different law schools too.[/quote]

One of which was UChi, I presume?