Columbia ED, 3.83 166

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
RamTitan

Silver
Posts: 1092
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:45 pm

Re: Columbia ED, 3.83 166

Postby RamTitan » Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:09 pm

curry1 wrote:
RamTitan wrote:
lawlorbust wrote:
RamTitan wrote:LMAO, you definitely intended for that to be rude (or you're completely socially incompetent...or both?). But I do not flip burgers (and never have), and actually do marketing for an IT company, so your comments don't offend me. With that said, your initial advice is still misguided.

Based off of a brief glance of your posting history, you come from an insulated perspective. That's cool that you went to a good law school and have had some success, but that doesn't mean your initial opinion is word of law. My point was that work experience, of any kind, can be good for most students (just take a look at the average starting age for the top tier law schools OP, and you'll see what I mean). Instead of addressing that, you insulted me when you know little about me other than what seems to be information taken from my first few posts here.

Edit - I also never claimed to be an authority on "non-shitty post-grad jobs". For someone who claims to have done the things he/she has done, I would have thought your language and logic skills would be stronger...


Oh, I never suggested that my initial opinion is word of law. I just thought that it was strange that you were questioning my background -- whether I was still in college -- since you are probably the most underqualified poster on this board to be giving any advice. To recap:

1. 0L
2. Shit ugrad
3. Unimpressive work experience (one year of IT marketing!!)
4. Worthless major
5. Mediocre GPA
6. Mediocre LSAT

(Again, I mean to state your qualifications in an objective manner, and want to state for the avoidance of any doubt that I'm not trying to come off as rude as all.) That hasn't stopped you from racking a thousand posts on giving advice on something that you don't really know anything about, that's a huge decision for lots of people. The world would be a better place if you didn't!

Once again, you're proving you're not a very good reader. I never said you were still in college; I asked if you were a K-JD. But I'll keep this going for my own amusement, but I'm sure it will get distorted.

1. As another poster pointed out, you are definitely not being objective. Are you sure you understand the definition of that word?
2. You don't know what undergraduate school I went to, so how do you know it's "shit"?
3. If you knew the company I worked for, you wouldn't be saying that. You likely say it's name every day, but I will not reveal anymore information about that.
4. I'm not going to debate whether an English Writing major is worthless. I agree that it's not the most employable degree, but I think someone with such weak reading comprehension skills like yourself should probably not knock it.
5. 3.66 isn't great on these boards, but it's definitely not mediocre.
6. 169....maybe you scored higher (which would be crazy considering the insane amount of assumptions you make), but a 169 is not mediocre.
7. I rarely give advice. Almost all of my posts have been asking questions about the LSAT and applying to schools. You clearly know my posting history, and can easily search it, so you should have known that what you said was false.

In summary, laworbust is either a troll or a brain dead elitist who was luckily born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Edit - and you still never actually addressed my initial point about having work experience of ANY kind is good for most students before they enroll in school. It seems that everyone in this thread agrees that you are dead wrong, so do us a favor and shut up.


The fact that the majority of T-14 matriculants have work experience does not necessarily mean that getting work experience was worthwhile for most of them or that doing so would be worthwhile for most applicants. Given the incredible cost of law school today, it is certainly arguable that it would be better for students with the stats to get into T6 schools or T14 with substantial money to go straight through rather than start biglaw when they are approaching 30 with enormous amounts of debt. People who have work experience are naturally going to be predisposed to say that they would "never trade their experience," but their desire to not feel like they have wasted time does not make getting work experience a good idea for everyone. The idea that even exceptional college graduates are going to generate significant "savings" during their few years of work experience and whatever they do generate will be directly countered by the price of law school rising 4-5% every year, compounding. You should stop posting.


Answer this one question; should someone with a 166 apply ED to Columbia instead of waiting one admissions cycle to get a higher score which could save them tremendous amounts of money?

OP may not even get in with a 166, let alone the money considerations!

Edit - OP wouldn't be approaching 30 when he got out of law school by taking one gap year. Nor did I ever say that getting work experience is a good idea for everyone. The hypotheticals you propose aren't even remotely similar to OP's case.

In addition, what if OP learns that he does not want to be a lawyer through this paralegal job, thus saving him the pain and cost of law school? Don't be stupid curry1.

curry1

Silver
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 11:41 am

Re: Columbia ED, 3.83 166

Postby curry1 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:48 pm

RamTitan wrote:
curry1 wrote:
RamTitan wrote:
lawlorbust wrote:
RamTitan wrote:LMAO, you definitely intended for that to be rude (or you're completely socially incompetent...or both?). But I do not flip burgers (and never have), and actually do marketing for an IT company, so your comments don't offend me. With that said, your initial advice is still misguided.

Based off of a brief glance of your posting history, you come from an insulated perspective. That's cool that you went to a good law school and have had some success, but that doesn't mean your initial opinion is word of law. My point was that work experience, of any kind, can be good for most students (just take a look at the average starting age for the top tier law schools OP, and you'll see what I mean). Instead of addressing that, you insulted me when you know little about me other than what seems to be information taken from my first few posts here.

Edit - I also never claimed to be an authority on "non-shitty post-grad jobs". For someone who claims to have done the things he/she has done, I would have thought your language and logic skills would be stronger...


Oh, I never suggested that my initial opinion is word of law. I just thought that it was strange that you were questioning my background -- whether I was still in college -- since you are probably the most underqualified poster on this board to be giving any advice. To recap:

1. 0L
2. Shit ugrad
3. Unimpressive work experience (one year of IT marketing!!)
4. Worthless major
5. Mediocre GPA
6. Mediocre LSAT

(Again, I mean to state your qualifications in an objective manner, and want to state for the avoidance of any doubt that I'm not trying to come off as rude as all.) That hasn't stopped you from racking a thousand posts on giving advice on something that you don't really know anything about, that's a huge decision for lots of people. The world would be a better place if you didn't!

Once again, you're proving you're not a very good reader. I never said you were still in college; I asked if you were a K-JD. But I'll keep this going for my own amusement, but I'm sure it will get distorted.

1. As another poster pointed out, you are definitely not being objective. Are you sure you understand the definition of that word?
2. You don't know what undergraduate school I went to, so how do you know it's "shit"?
3. If you knew the company I worked for, you wouldn't be saying that. You likely say it's name every day, but I will not reveal anymore information about that.
4. I'm not going to debate whether an English Writing major is worthless. I agree that it's not the most employable degree, but I think someone with such weak reading comprehension skills like yourself should probably not knock it.
5. 3.66 isn't great on these boards, but it's definitely not mediocre.
6. 169....maybe you scored higher (which would be crazy considering the insane amount of assumptions you make), but a 169 is not mediocre.
7. I rarely give advice. Almost all of my posts have been asking questions about the LSAT and applying to schools. You clearly know my posting history, and can easily search it, so you should have known that what you said was false.

In summary, laworbust is either a troll or a brain dead elitist who was luckily born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Edit - and you still never actually addressed my initial point about having work experience of ANY kind is good for most students before they enroll in school. It seems that everyone in this thread agrees that you are dead wrong, so do us a favor and shut up.


The fact that the majority of T-14 matriculants have work experience does not necessarily mean that getting work experience was worthwhile for most of them or that doing so would be worthwhile for most applicants. Given the incredible cost of law school today, it is certainly arguable that it would be better for students with the stats to get into T6 schools or T14 with substantial money to go straight through rather than start biglaw when they are approaching 30 with enormous amounts of debt. People who have work experience are naturally going to be predisposed to say that they would "never trade their experience," but their desire to not feel like they have wasted time does not make getting work experience a good idea for everyone. The idea that even exceptional college graduates are going to generate significant "savings" during their few years of work experience and whatever they do generate will be directly countered by the price of law school rising 4-5% every year, compounding. You should stop posting.


Answer this one question; should someone with a 166 apply ED to Columbia instead of waiting one admissions cycle to get a higher score which could save them tremendous amounts of money?

OP may not even get in with a 166, let alone the money considerations!

Edit - OP wouldn't be approaching 30 when he got out of law school by taking one gap year. Nor did I ever say that getting work experience is a good idea for everyone. The hypotheticals you propose aren't even remotely similar to OP's case.

In addition, what if OP learns that he does not want to be a lawyer through this paralegal job, thus saving him the pain and cost of law school? Don't be stupid curry1.


No, he should not and I highly doubt that he'd get into Columbia regardless. He should certainly retake, and should probably take a year off because even a January app would hurt his chances. I wasn't commenting on his situation, but instead your baseless assertion that work experience is good for most people, good to hear you don't think it's a panacea for everyone. Regarding his choice to work as a paralegal, there are much more efficient ways to learn whether one wants to become a practicing attorney (summer internship etc.) and a paralegal gig will make it quite difficult for him to find good employment in the future should he decide not to apply to law school. If he is to get work experience, he should get a prestigious job or fellowship that will serve him well regardless of his future choice to apply or not to apply to school. Please note that such a job does not include "marketing" for an "IT" company. Think Fulbright, Coro Fellowship etc. Unfortunately, the elite consulting/banking etc. ship has already sailed for him. Perhaps TFA if he can't find anything else.

User avatar
RamTitan

Silver
Posts: 1092
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:45 pm

Re: Columbia ED, 3.83 166

Postby RamTitan » Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:57 pm

curry1 wrote:
RamTitan wrote:
curry1 wrote:
RamTitan wrote:
lawlorbust wrote:
RamTitan wrote:LMAO, you definitely intended for that to be rude (or you're completely socially incompetent...or both?). But I do not flip burgers (and never have), and actually do marketing for an IT company, so your comments don't offend me. With that said, your initial advice is still misguided.

Based off of a brief glance of your posting history, you come from an insulated perspective. That's cool that you went to a good law school and have had some success, but that doesn't mean your initial opinion is word of law. My point was that work experience, of any kind, can be good for most students (just take a look at the average starting age for the top tier law schools OP, and you'll see what I mean). Instead of addressing that, you insulted me when you know little about me other than what seems to be information taken from my first few posts here.

Edit - I also never claimed to be an authority on "non-shitty post-grad jobs". For someone who claims to have done the things he/she has done, I would have thought your language and logic skills would be stronger...


Oh, I never suggested that my initial opinion is word of law. I just thought that it was strange that you were questioning my background -- whether I was still in college -- since you are probably the most underqualified poster on this board to be giving any advice. To recap:

1. 0L
2. Shit ugrad
3. Unimpressive work experience (one year of IT marketing!!)
4. Worthless major
5. Mediocre GPA
6. Mediocre LSAT

(Again, I mean to state your qualifications in an objective manner, and want to state for the avoidance of any doubt that I'm not trying to come off as rude as all.) That hasn't stopped you from racking a thousand posts on giving advice on something that you don't really know anything about, that's a huge decision for lots of people. The world would be a better place if you didn't!

Once again, you're proving you're not a very good reader. I never said you were still in college; I asked if you were a K-JD. But I'll keep this going for my own amusement, but I'm sure it will get distorted.

1. As another poster pointed out, you are definitely not being objective. Are you sure you understand the definition of that word?
2. You don't know what undergraduate school I went to, so how do you know it's "shit"?
3. If you knew the company I worked for, you wouldn't be saying that. You likely say it's name every day, but I will not reveal anymore information about that.
4. I'm not going to debate whether an English Writing major is worthless. I agree that it's not the most employable degree, but I think someone with such weak reading comprehension skills like yourself should probably not knock it.
5. 3.66 isn't great on these boards, but it's definitely not mediocre.
6. 169....maybe you scored higher (which would be crazy considering the insane amount of assumptions you make), but a 169 is not mediocre.
7. I rarely give advice. Almost all of my posts have been asking questions about the LSAT and applying to schools. You clearly know my posting history, and can easily search it, so you should have known that what you said was false.

In summary, laworbust is either a troll or a brain dead elitist who was luckily born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Edit - and you still never actually addressed my initial point about having work experience of ANY kind is good for most students before they enroll in school. It seems that everyone in this thread agrees that you are dead wrong, so do us a favor and shut up.


The fact that the majority of T-14 matriculants have work experience does not necessarily mean that getting work experience was worthwhile for most of them or that doing so would be worthwhile for most applicants. Given the incredible cost of law school today, it is certainly arguable that it would be better for students with the stats to get into T6 schools or T14 with substantial money to go straight through rather than start biglaw when they are approaching 30 with enormous amounts of debt. People who have work experience are naturally going to be predisposed to say that they would "never trade their experience," but their desire to not feel like they have wasted time does not make getting work experience a good idea for everyone. The idea that even exceptional college graduates are going to generate significant "savings" during their few years of work experience and whatever they do generate will be directly countered by the price of law school rising 4-5% every year, compounding. You should stop posting.


Answer this one question; should someone with a 166 apply ED to Columbia instead of waiting one admissions cycle to get a higher score which could save them tremendous amounts of money?

OP may not even get in with a 166, let alone the money considerations!

Edit - OP wouldn't be approaching 30 when he got out of law school by taking one gap year. Nor did I ever say that getting work experience is a good idea for everyone. The hypotheticals you propose aren't even remotely similar to OP's case.

In addition, what if OP learns that he does not want to be a lawyer through this paralegal job, thus saving him the pain and cost of law school? Don't be stupid curry1.


No, he should not and I highly doubt that he'd get into Columbia regardless. He should certainly retake, and should probably take a year off because even a January app would hurt his chances. I wasn't commenting on his situation, but instead your baseless assertion that work experience is good for most people, good to hear you don't think it's a panacea for everyone. Regarding his choice to work as a paralegal, there are much more efficient ways to learn whether one wants to become a practicing attorney (summer internship etc.) and a paralegal gig will make it quite difficult for him to find good employment in the future should he decide not to apply to law school. If he is to get work experience, he should get a prestigious job or fellowship that will serve him well regardless of his future choice to apply or not to apply to school. Please note that such a job does not include "marketing" for an "IT" company. Think Fulbright, Coro Fellowship etc. Unfortunately, the elite consulting/banking etc. ship has already sailed for him. Perhaps TFA if he can't find anything else.


My entire point was that getting work experience could be good for him, and that he probably shouldn't do Columbia ED, and should bump up his LSAT. Seems that you agree with that.

With that said, none of your other points are related whatsoever to what I've said. I never said he needs to be a paralegal to learn if he wants to be a lawyer (only that he could) or that he shouldn't pursue some other form of employment. By all means, go ahead; just don't apply with a 166!

I also don't understand why you and lawlorbust continue to personally insult my background. I never claimed that my job was prestigious (though once again, if you knew the company I worked for, you would probably stop mocking my "pitiful marketing job"; do you really think a CORO fellowship is better perceived than working for a company like Google? What about the connections one would make working at such a place? Think bigger curry1). I also think your obsession with being "elite" or what you perceive to be elite, is strange.

This is classic misdirection; "let's spend our time disparaging RamTitan's background and knock down arguments he's never made."

Edit - in addition, I think spending time learning a skill like marketing, which I will use if I have my own practice like I want to do, is absolutely not a waste of time. Also, rather than pick a career choice based on its perceived prestige, I choose to do what I am interested in.

But once again, this is not at all related to what OP should do or my initial arguments, but I feel the need to defend myself now that lawlorbust and curry1 continue to mock my choices. I hope future posts in this thread concern OP's situation and nothing else.

curry1

Silver
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 11:41 am

Re: Columbia ED, 3.83 166

Postby curry1 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:34 pm

RamTitan wrote:
curry1 wrote:
RamTitan wrote:
curry1 wrote:
RamTitan wrote:
lawlorbust wrote:
RamTitan wrote:LMAO, you definitely intended for that to be rude (or you're completely socially incompetent...or both?). But I do not flip burgers (and never have), and actually do marketing for an IT company, so your comments don't offend me. With that said, your initial advice is still misguided.

Based off of a brief glance of your posting history, you come from an insulated perspective. That's cool that you went to a good law school and have had some success, but that doesn't mean your initial opinion is word of law. My point was that work experience, of any kind, can be good for most students (just take a look at the average starting age for the top tier law schools OP, and you'll see what I mean). Instead of addressing that, you insulted me when you know little about me other than what seems to be information taken from my first few posts here.

Edit - I also never claimed to be an authority on "non-shitty post-grad jobs". For someone who claims to have done the things he/she has done, I would have thought your language and logic skills would be stronger...


Oh, I never suggested that my initial opinion is word of law. I just thought that it was strange that you were questioning my background -- whether I was still in college -- since you are probably the most underqualified poster on this board to be giving any advice. To recap:

1. 0L
2. Shit ugrad
3. Unimpressive work experience (one year of IT marketing!!)
4. Worthless major
5. Mediocre GPA
6. Mediocre LSAT

(Again, I mean to state your qualifications in an objective manner, and want to state for the avoidance of any doubt that I'm not trying to come off as rude as all.) That hasn't stopped you from racking a thousand posts on giving advice on something that you don't really know anything about, that's a huge decision for lots of people. The world would be a better place if you didn't!

Once again, you're proving you're not a very good reader. I never said you were still in college; I asked if you were a K-JD. But I'll keep this going for my own amusement, but I'm sure it will get distorted.

1. As another poster pointed out, you are definitely not being objective. Are you sure you understand the definition of that word?
2. You don't know what undergraduate school I went to, so how do you know it's "shit"?
3. If you knew the company I worked for, you wouldn't be saying that. You likely say it's name every day, but I will not reveal anymore information about that.
4. I'm not going to debate whether an English Writing major is worthless. I agree that it's not the most employable degree, but I think someone with such weak reading comprehension skills like yourself should probably not knock it.
5. 3.66 isn't great on these boards, but it's definitely not mediocre.
6. 169....maybe you scored higher (which would be crazy considering the insane amount of assumptions you make), but a 169 is not mediocre.
7. I rarely give advice. Almost all of my posts have been asking questions about the LSAT and applying to schools. You clearly know my posting history, and can easily search it, so you should have known that what you said was false.

In summary, laworbust is either a troll or a brain dead elitist who was luckily born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Edit - and you still never actually addressed my initial point about having work experience of ANY kind is good for most students before they enroll in school. It seems that everyone in this thread agrees that you are dead wrong, so do us a favor and shut up.


The fact that the majority of T-14 matriculants have work experience does not necessarily mean that getting work experience was worthwhile for most of them or that doing so would be worthwhile for most applicants. Given the incredible cost of law school today, it is certainly arguable that it would be better for students with the stats to get into T6 schools or T14 with substantial money to go straight through rather than start biglaw when they are approaching 30 with enormous amounts of debt. People who have work experience are naturally going to be predisposed to say that they would "never trade their experience," but their desire to not feel like they have wasted time does not make getting work experience a good idea for everyone. The idea that even exceptional college graduates are going to generate significant "savings" during their few years of work experience and whatever they do generate will be directly countered by the price of law school rising 4-5% every year, compounding. You should stop posting.


Answer this one question; should someone with a 166 apply ED to Columbia instead of waiting one admissions cycle to get a higher score which could save them tremendous amounts of money?

OP may not even get in with a 166, let alone the money considerations!

Edit - OP wouldn't be approaching 30 when he got out of law school by taking one gap year. Nor did I ever say that getting work experience is a good idea for everyone. The hypotheticals you propose aren't even remotely similar to OP's case.

In addition, what if OP learns that he does not want to be a lawyer through this paralegal job, thus saving him the pain and cost of law school? Don't be stupid curry1.


No, he should not and I highly doubt that he'd get into Columbia regardless. He should certainly retake, and should probably take a year off because even a January app would hurt his chances. I wasn't commenting on his situation, but instead your baseless assertion that work experience is good for most people, good to hear you don't think it's a panacea for everyone. Regarding his choice to work as a paralegal, there are much more efficient ways to learn whether one wants to become a practicing attorney (summer internship etc.) and a paralegal gig will make it quite difficult for him to find good employment in the future should he decide not to apply to law school. If he is to get work experience, he should get a prestigious job or fellowship that will serve him well regardless of his future choice to apply or not to apply to school. Please note that such a job does not include "marketing" for an "IT" company. Think Fulbright, Coro Fellowship etc. Unfortunately, the elite consulting/banking etc. ship has already sailed for him. Perhaps TFA if he can't find anything else.


My entire point was that getting work experience could be good for him, and that he probably shouldn't do Columbia ED, and should bump up his LSAT. Seems that you agree with that.

With that said, none of your other points are related whatsoever to what I've said. I never said he needs to be a paralegal to learn if he wants to be a lawyer (only that he could) or that he shouldn't pursue some other form of employment. By all means, go ahead; just don't apply with a 166!

I also don't understand why you and lawlorbust continue to personally insult my background. I never claimed that my job was prestigious (though once again, if you knew the company I worked for, you would probably stop mocking my "pitiful marketing job"; do you really think a CORO fellowship is better perceived than working for a company like Google? What about the connections one would make working at such a place? Think bigger curry1). I also think your obsession with being "elite" or what you perceive to be elite, is strange.

This is classic misdirection; "let's spend our time disparaging RamTitan's background and knock down arguments he's never made."

Edit - in addition, I think spending time learning a skill like marketing, which I will use if I have my own practice like I want to do, is absolutely not a waste of time. Also, rather than pick a career choice based on its perceived prestige, I choose to do what I am interested in.

But once again, this is not at all related to what OP should do or my initial arguments, but I feel the need to defend myself now that lawlorbust and curry1 continue to mock my choices. I hope future posts in this thread concern OP's situation and nothing else.


So Google is now an IT company? Nice! I hear Mountain View is a much more cost efficient place to operate a call-center than Bangalore. Please tell me about all the important connections you'll be making in a brief stint as the lowest on the totem pole at a large "IT (google!)" company. You'll have an entire book of business ready before you start your SA! You must have gone to an abysmal UG if you think that a monkey job at a call-center company is more prestigious than a fellowship with a cohort of 12 that puts you in direct contact with policy leaders and counts two U.S. Senators among its alumni. I am mocking you because you put yourself out as an authority on not only the value of work experience but also the "[general shittiness]" of all post-UG jobs, which you now seem to be walking back through frequent reference to how high-profile your company is. LOL

User avatar
beckettbuddy

New
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:11 am

Re: Columbia ED, 3.83 166

Postby beckettbuddy » Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:36 pm

*
Last edited by beckettbuddy on Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RamTitan

Silver
Posts: 1092
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:45 pm

Re: Columbia ED, 3.83 166

Postby RamTitan » Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:00 pm

curry1 wrote:
So Google is now an IT company? Nice! I hear Mountain View is a much more cost efficient place to operate a call-center than Bangalore. Please tell me about all the important connections you'll be making in a brief stint as the lowest on the totem pole at a large "IT (google!)" company. You'll have an entire book of business ready before you start your SA! You must have gone to an abysmal UG if you think that a monkey job at a call-center company is more prestigious than a fellowship with a cohort of 12 that puts you in direct contact with policy leaders and counts two U.S. Senators among its alumni. I am mocking you because you put yourself out as an authority on not only the value of work experience but also the "[general shittiness]" of all post-UG jobs, which you now seem to be walking back through frequent reference to how high-profile your company is. LOL

My last post in this thread.

1. Lol, I do not work at a call center. Also I did not say I worked at Google, or that it's an IT company. Please read my post again. Take your time and be thorough.
2. Where did I say I was an authority? I'll do the leg work for you; I never did. Is this your first time on the Internet? I offered an opinion...on a message board. An opinion you agreed with!
3. I did say most entry-level jobs are shit. Because they are. Not everyone gets to work as an investment banker (or whatever your definition of a good job is, since it seems that you're mostly concerned about some vague idea of being "elite") after graduation.

I hope you are not a lawyer or plan on being one, since you make insane assumptions and cannot stick to the thread of an argument. My initial point is still correct, and you agreed with it. Now please, be quiet.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Columbia ED, 3.83 166

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:09 am

curry1 wrote:So Google is now an IT company? Nice! I hear Mountain View is a much more cost efficient place to operate a call-center than Bangalore. Please tell me about all the important connections you'll be making in a brief stint as the lowest on the totem pole at a large "IT (google!)" company. You'll have an entire book of business ready before you start your SA! You must have gone to an abysmal UG if you think that a monkey job at a call-center company is more prestigious than a fellowship with a cohort of 12 that puts you in direct contact with policy leaders and counts two U.S. Senators among its alumni. I am mocking you because you put yourself out as an authority on not only the value of work experience but also the "[general shittiness]" of all post-UG jobs, which you now seem to be walking back through frequent reference to how high-profile your company is. LOL

stop being an ass or take some time off.

cantyoloforever

Bronze
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:02 pm

Re: Columbia ED, 3.83 166

Postby cantyoloforever » Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:28 pm

This is super ridiculous. I don't even understand what's being argued about here. Ram said most entry-level jobs are shit....how is that not true? Most jobs in general are shit. It's not like over 50% of jobs are fullbright fellows or whatever. And while I think the paralegal gig sounds pretty good (please don't attack my life, for I am just a humble and pathetic proletariat lol), he doesn't even argue that the paralegal job is not a shit job, nor that the OP should do that particular job, which seems to be what has curry1 so angry, just that he should take a year to do SOMETHING and not apply ED to Columbia right now.



Return to “Law School Admissions Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests