Veterans Thread

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
sgt101st
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby sgt101st » Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:07 pm

Actually, you did screw up royally, but for the better!

http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/yellowribbon.htm

Says Yale offers up to $5,000 in Yellow Ribbon, which you have on your spread sheet. However, you forgot to double that amount because the VA matches that $5,000. So in actuality, Yale "offers" $10,000 in YRP. That lowers the amount owed per year. Not sure about the rest of the schools.

User avatar
Kring345
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:30 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby Kring345 » Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:22 pm

sgt101st wrote:Actually, you did screw up royally, but for the better!

http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/yellowribbon.htm

Says Yale offers up to $5,000 in Yellow Ribbon, which you have on your spread sheet. However, you forgot to double that amount because the VA matches that $5,000. So in actuality, Yale "offers" $10,000 in YRP. That lowers the amount owed per year. Not sure about the rest of the schools.

I factored that in. Look at my formula.

sgt101st
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby sgt101st » Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:40 pm

Ah! You're right. I didn't carry it through to completion and do all the math. Just went off the posted numbers.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby 03121202698008 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:18 am

Kring345 wrote:
2. Im a bit confused by UVA, Mich, Berk, UCLA, and Texas. They should be 100% covered as public schools, correct? If so, why is there even anything listed under the yellow ribbon program? If not, what am I missing?


According to my account info at Michigan, the gi bill only covered the in-state tuition. YR then split the difference to the out of state.

You should also maybe track which schools will allow merit aid to refund after the gi bill pays tuition. They have to go through some classification hoopla to get them out from under Congress' last payor provision in the last change. Michigan refunds.

User avatar
Kring345
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:30 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby Kring345 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:02 am

blowhard wrote:
Kring345 wrote:
2. Im a bit confused by UVA, Mich, Berk, UCLA, and Texas. They should be 100% covered as public schools, correct? If so, why is there even anything listed under the yellow ribbon program? If not, what am I missing?


According to my account info at Michigan, the gi bill only covered the in-state tuition. YR then split the difference to the out of state.

So GI covers the out of state 23,000 and then they take care of the rest with the YRP? Is there not a max limit for in state tuition? There has to be. After all, Berkeley's in state tuition is 50,000!!

I think I just confused the shit out of myself.

User avatar
unc0mm0n1
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:06 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby unc0mm0n1 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:39 am

Kring345 wrote:
blowhard wrote:
Kring345 wrote:
2. Im a bit confused by UVA, Mich, Berk, UCLA, and Texas. They should be 100% covered as public schools, correct? If so, why is there even anything listed under the yellow ribbon program? If not, what am I missing?


According to my account info at Michigan, the gi bill only covered the in-state tuition. YR then split the difference to the out of state.

So GI covers the out of state 23,000 and then they take care of the rest with the YRP? Is there not a max limit for in state tuition? There has to be. After all, Berkeley's in state tuition is 50,000!!

I think I just confused the shit out of myself.


I got accepted to Berkeley and talked to Financial aid a lot. The GI Bill covers the instate tuition the Yellow ribbon covers the difference between instate and out of state (I was an out of state student), then any merit money you get they refund it to you until you reach the COA.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby 03121202698008 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:51 am

Kring345 wrote:
blowhard wrote:
Kring345 wrote:
2. Im a bit confused by UVA, Mich, Berk, UCLA, and Texas. They should be 100% covered as public schools, correct? If so, why is there even anything listed under the yellow ribbon program? If not, what am I missing?


According to my account info at Michigan, the gi bill only covered the in-state tuition. YR then split the difference to the out of state.

So GI covers the out of state 23,000 and then they take care of the rest with the YRP? Is there not a max limit for in state tuition? There has to be. After all, Berkeley's in state tuition is 50,000!!

I think I just confused the shit out of myself.


There is no max for in-state for public schools. It's one of the changes that went into effect in July.

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby EMZE » Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:37 pm

Posting here to continue from external thread regarding my claim Marines being part of the Navy. I believe that somone threatened removal from gene pool. If I need be berated, lets keep it away from the sensitive civvies.

So, the grounds for my claim is that the Commandant of the Marine Corps ultimately reports to the Secretary of the Navy. Army reports to secretary of the Army, Air force to air force.

Now, I don't mean to say that a sailor = marine in job, training, etc. But the naval academy comissions directly into the marines as well.

Personally, I have had a mixed bag of experiences with Marines. In my experience, I have been much more impressed with Marine junior enlisted. Marine NCO's, not so much. But at least they aren't all fat, like so crap load of Army senior NCO's...

So someone tell me why, in light of reporting to the secretary of the Navy, they aren't just the ground expedionary force of the Navy?

User avatar
Kring345
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:30 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby Kring345 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:08 am

I dont have much time and I just worked 15 hours straight, so this may not be the best defense ever written, but here we go: :lol:

We obviously (and technically) are affiliated with the Navy. That's obvious. They are our doctors, medics, dentists, Chaplains, etc. And we ride on their ships. But apart from MEUs (commanded by O-6), we do not deploy or work with them. The only time that I have ever worked with them is when I go to medical. Seriously. That's it. Ever. And even on the MEUs, there are two commanders: a Navy Captain and a Marine Colonel. The Captain is in charge of the ships (maintenance, logistics, steering) and the Colonel is in charge of the pointy end of the stick. And they sail around independent of the Navy's fleet/whatever. Who does the intel? Marines. Supply? Marines. Admin? Marines. The Navy folk on the MEUs simply operate the vessels.

You cited that Secretary of the Navy. Yes, you are correct. But, really? When things get that high on the totem pole, it's no longer the real Marine Corps. Im talking about how the Marines actually operate in real life. Plus Im pretty sure that the Director of Naval Operations (4 star) and the Commandant of the Marine Corps (4 star) actually are responsible for their respective services.

If you are a platoon commander, what unit would you say you were with? Probably 1st Platoon, B Company, 3rd Bn, right? You may throw in 4th Regiment. Maybe even 5th Division. But the further you go up the chain, the less you really truly identify with that unit, right? Do you identify at all with the Secretary of the Army? Is he REALLY in your chain of command? In that way, do the Marines REALLY identify with the Navy if our largest connection is the this abstract idea of the Secretary of the Navy and the fact that we use Navy doctors?

We have our own area of operations in arguably the most dangerous part of Afghanistan (Helmand Province). Is that controlled by the Navy or the Marines? Marines. Same story in Iraq when we control Al Anbar province. The Navy's only role was sewing up the Marines who got wounded.

To be honest, Ive worked with the Army and the even the British WAYYY more than Ive worked with the Navy. And, to be honest again, Ive had HORRIBLE experiences with the Army. I had a MSgt looking at a map of Afghanistan once. Pakistan was "grayed out" on the map. He asked me what the grey part was. "Is that the ocean?" he asked. Are you fucking kidding me?! hahaha just one of many interactions.

Obviously, though, the turds Ive experienced are not representative of the entire Army, just like the turds that youve experienced from the Marine Corps. We both get the job done pretty damn well, and that simply wouldnt be the case if both services were composed of the shit bags we associate with that particular service. I have no problems with the Army, Navy or Air Force. Im not one of those retarded, chest-thumping, obsessive Marines at all. I'd have no problem serving in or working with another branch.

In regards to the technical connections between Navy-Marines: We used to be swing from ropes and attack other ships back in the day. So we used to be intrinsically linked, but I simply dont see it anymore. It seems like we are still connected more out of tradition than anything else. Id imagine splitting us off would be a budget nightmare. Also we are trying to revisit our amphibious roots a bit now that the wars are winding down. They are beginning to do a lot more beach landing training.

Also, just a side note, we have our own "air force." You guys rely on the capitalized Air Force. We have helicopters, jets, transport, etc. All flown by Marines.

In the end, I'll say this. Scenario. You have to go from point A to point B with your family in your station wagon. Unfortunately, to get to point B, you have to drive through Compton. You ask a muscular and large-framed friend to come along. You'll pay his food and lodging, but you just want him to sit in the back seat wearing chain-mail, a gladiator helmet, and carrying a battle-ax just in case you break down and have to battle the Crypts. That metaphor pretty much perfectly describes the Navy-Marine relationship. Perfectly. Navy:station-wagon-family::Marines:friend-in-chainmail

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby EMZE » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:17 am

Kring345 wrote:In the end, I'll say this. Scenario. You have to go from point A to point B with your family in your station wagon. Unfortunately, to get to point B, you have to drive through Compton. You ask a muscular and large-framed friend to come along. You'll pay his food and lodging, but you just want him to sit in the back seat wearing chain-mail, a gladiator helmet, and carrying a battle-ax just in case you break down. That metaphor pretty much perfectly describes the Navy-Marine relationship. Perfectly. Navy:station-wagon-family::Marines:friend-in-chainmail



Awesome. And, I ultimately agree with all. I worked with a marine embedded training team on our outpost in Kunar, and my observations were that Marine NCOs with "soft" MOS's are exceptional compared to the average Army soft MOS NCO. This one E-5 was an unbelievable leader, and he was a supply clerk. Marine officers I wasn't too impressed with... as an O myself, the dozen or so I have worked with just didn't seem to really show the level of problem solving and planning i have found in the Army.

Again, those observations are both very general, by no means or to any extent all inclusive.

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby ThomasMN » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:52 am

UVA offers instate tuition for veterans, which ends up meaning that 100% of costs are met by the GI Bill. Just to make that simply UVA = free on the new GI Bill.

That and on the topic of Army / Navy / Marine Corps : I have never been overly impressed by the Marines I've worked with. That being said, I never worked with a lot of Marine Infantry except some FAST teams. It isn't that they weren't proficient at their individual tasks, their approach to combat just seemed intellectually lacking to me. Being a grunt, I despise all the soft MOS's in the Army. Well not all, but pretty close to all of them. I worked with some guys from the 82nd Airborne Signal Corp detachment and they were pretty good guys. I worked with Navy EOD in Afghanistan and they were a great group of guys. They had more money to throw around on gear than any other unit I have ever worked with. After working with Marines on a few different occasions I didn't get what the big deal was. The Marines as an organization certainly have some advantages on the Army - smaller size and larger scope of operations makes retention and recruitment easier - but the Army also has a more encompassing mission. The Army just needs more bodies to get the job done and has to drop standards when it comes to certain areas. However, there are a lot of units in the Army that I would put up against any unit in the Marine Corp. I am also not just talking about Ranger Battalion or CAG : )

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby EMZE » Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:24 am

One thing that I've been consistently impressed by with Marines though is discipline. They are amazing about courtesies and maintaining etiquette. I know for outsiders that may sound trivial, but I am just very impressed with how they carry themselves.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby 03121202698008 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:05 am

.
Last edited by 03121202698008 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

rckybbby
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:43 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby rckybbby » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:40 am

Superstars and retards in every group. Doesn't matter where you go.

The best military officers in the history of military and officers are in the Army, Navy, and Marines....

Warrant Officers

lialadiva
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:11 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby lialadiva » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:31 pm

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=172010

I overly in need of help!!! Please read my thread I have posted in another forum. Greatly appreciated if a military member answers this!

Thank you.

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby ThomasMN » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:08 pm

EMZE wrote:One thing that I've been consistently impressed by with Marines though is discipline. They are amazing about courtesies and maintaining etiquette. I know for outsiders that may sound trivial, but I am just very impressed with how they carry themselves.


I agree with EMZE on this one. I believe that what he is getting at with discipline is that the Marines are still big on customs and courtesies, whereas, a lot of Army folks are not so big on them. I don't know how many times I had to hem people up for not standing at parade rest for NCO'S or going to the position of attention for officers. I blame some of that on how a lot of lower enlisted want to be "cool" and the best way to be cool is to act like they are a SFC in Special Forces.

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby ThomasMN » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:09 pm

rckybbby wrote:Superstars and retards in every group. Doesn't matter where you go.

The best military officers in the history of military and officers are in the Army, Navy, and Marines....

Warrant Officers


Clearly trolling the Air Force. +1

rckybbby
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:43 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby rckybbby » Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:22 pm

ThomasMN wrote:
rckybbby wrote:Superstars and retards in every group. Doesn't matter where you go.

The best military officers in the history of military and officers are in the Army, Navy, and Marines....

Warrant Officers


Clearly trolling the Air Force. +1


haha. Not hating on the Air Force, it's just that they don't have warrants.

User avatar
lrslayer
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:38 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby lrslayer » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:11 pm

why don't you guys just quit it with the "my branch was better than yours" bullshit! it has nothing to do with LAW SCHOOL admissions and you are in a LAW SCHOOL admissions forum. stay on topic and keep the dick comparisons in your pm's or move it to the lounge. btw, its offensive to sit here and read people generalizing one way or the other about service members when we all know that anecdotal evidence is only anecdotal.

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby EMZE » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:20 pm

In an effort to try and progress this thread positively given the input of those who have recently contributed, any feedback for which branch of service transitions better outside of the military? At the risk of using anecdotal evidence, though I fear that is all we really have to go on, I have heard that air force veterans struggle a little more so than others due to the perception that their service is not as leadership focused as those in the Army/Marines. Also due to the fact that more officers in the air force stay in because pilots already have such a committment, and if they do transition, it is more often to fly commercial airliners.

This information comes from a USAFA grad trying to transition.

sgt101st
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby sgt101st » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:26 pm

I know at my school its almost all combat vets. My SWAG is that the support jobs (which the airforce has a ton of) are much more technically oriented and thus just transition straight into a civilian gig without having to go to school. Easier to translate their military training into civilian terms and all that.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby 03121202698008 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:55 pm

.
Last edited by 03121202698008 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

NavyLaw
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby NavyLaw » Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:27 pm

I know navy nukes are really desirable, for what thats worth

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby EMZE » Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:06 pm

Hey, can someone else take a look at this and tell me if I am off with this dude. It might make better sense to someone from the Army, since some of the acronyms and lingo is esoteric. I just don't really believe what he is saying.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=171931

It's got me pretty fired up. Tried to give a non-emotional response.

User avatar
californihuh
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:15 am

Re: ITT: Military Veterans

Postby californihuh » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:02 am

1) troll
2) poser (why anyone would pose as a medic in an internet forum is beyond me)
3) justifies the numbers received and/or padding the background info using verbiage




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, MZaf and 3 guests