Top Law Schools

story time. i don't have internet in my apt until tomorrow, so i've been driving up to the coop to use my laptop from my car. (everybody in my neighborhood actually knows how to secure a network, sadly.)

wow there's a cat outside walking around. hey there cat.

anyway, i'm getting really creeped out by these breast feeding public service announcements that they've been playing all the time on the radio. that's all i hear while i use the internet.

this cat is stalking the garbage can pretty hardcore.

anyway, story over. basically what i'm trying to say is that not having the internet suuuuuucks.

Does anyone know when we can sign up and pay for a locker on campus?

ajtheaj wrote:Does anyone know when we can sign up and pay for a locker on campus?

You need to bring a check with you tomorrow to orientation. The cost is $45 for a generic locker and $65 if you want a fancy one with a key. You give them the check tomorrow, and they assign the lockers on Tuesday.

Or if you're talking about a locker at gregory, I think it's wed

So what's the deal with lockers in Gregory? I think that could be good to have, but not if it's another $45...

mlloyd wrote:So what's the deal with lockers in Gregory? I think that could be good to have, but not if it's another $45...

It's not free. Dont remember the cost, though. It's probably on the rec sports website

HAPPY ORIENTATION DAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

That was fun, and the fajitas were tasty

Esc wrote:That was fun, and the fajitas were tasty

+ 1000

Both the chicken and the beef were delissshhhh!

http://www.frugalfeaster.com/

Can't remember if this was posted.

First day of orientation!

Impressions-

1. Too much public interest law all at once. The people I met have already burned out on public interest law and are angling for big ventures as corporate lawyers.

2. I felt like the panelists in section 3 were overly harsh on the big law guy. So he has a different perspective than the people who spent their entire careers working in public service, but he's advocating pro bono so shouldn't he get some respect?

3. The fajitas were tasty and the margaritas good. Both are local Texan culinary inventions I approve of!

4. Not digging the no-computers rule I heard of in other sections. Hoping my section has no such rule.

Snooker wrote:First day of orientation!

Impressions-

1. Too much public interest law all at once. The people I met have already burned out on public interest law and are angling for big ventures as corporate lawyers.

2. I felt like the panelists in section 3 were overly harsh on the big law guy. So he has a different perspective than the people who spent their entire careers working in public service, but he's advocating pro bono so shouldn't he get some respect?

3. The fajitas were tasty and the margaritas good. Both are local Texan culinary inventions I approve of!

4. Not digging the no-computers rule I heard of in other sections. Hoping my section has no such rule.

As a tried and true public interest groupie, I have to agree that they laid it on a little thick. The immigration and criminal defense clinic professors were very interesting, but I felt that they were supremely adequate to represent the clinic program; IMO the domestic violence clinic prof's presentation was unnecessary and over the top, and very lecturing in an unpleasant, "in your face" way.

I realize that, given the abysmally small proportion of UT grads who go into public interest, they are trying hard to promote this, but I think they should have recognized the reality that most of us will end up in private firms, and provided a speaker who could talk on this subject. That would have provided pertinent information without turning anybody off from the public interest clinic concept.

I'm surprised to hear that the panelists in your section seemed harsh like that. Ours in section 4 were great, and got along very well. Personalities, maybe?

Esc wrote:

Snooker wrote:First day of orientation!

Impressions-

1. Too much public interest law all at once. The people I met have already burned out on public interest law and are angling for big ventures as corporate lawyers.

2. I felt like the panelists in section 3 were overly harsh on the big law guy. So he has a different perspective than the people who spent their entire careers working in public service, but he's advocating pro bono so shouldn't he get some respect?

3. The fajitas were tasty and the margaritas good. Both are local Texan culinary inventions I approve of!

4. Not digging the no-computers rule I heard of in other sections. Hoping my section has no such rule.

As a tried and true public interest groupie, I have to agree that they laid it on a little thick. The immigration and criminal defense clinic professors were very interesting, but I felt that they were supremely adequate to represent the clinic program; IMO the domestic violence clinic prof's presentation was unnecessary and over the top, and very lecturing in an unpleasant, "in your face" way.

I realize that, given the abysmally small proportion of UT grads who go into public interest, they are trying hard to promote this, but I think they should have recognized the reality that most of us will end up in private firms, and provided a speaker who could talk on this subject. That would have provided pertinent information without turning anybody off from the public interest clinic concept.

I'm surprised to hear that the panelists in your section seemed harsh like that. Ours in section 4 were great, and got along very well. Personalities, maybe?

I enjoyed listening to the different clinical profs (especially Prof. Buehl, my section faculty adviser) and don't think they laid it on "too thick." Since we already have enough pressure (e.g., desire for prestige, loans, living expenses, lifestyle choices, etc.) to "sell out," it only makes sense (to me, at least) for the school to feature mainly people--with fancy JD's--who've chosen to pursue non-lucrative yet highly fulfilling public-interest careers.

The day was incredibly boring and not very informative. I was surprised at how lousy the speakers were and how dumb some of the profs seemed. Having everyone take an oath was meaningless and retarded. TTT all the way.

Clawclawclaw wrote:The day was incredibly boring and not very informative. I was surprised at how lousy the speakers were and how dumb some of the profs seemed. Having everyone take an oath was meaningless and retarded. TTT all the way.

Troll much?

That's my honest reaction.

i was surprised by all the crazy hairdos the profs were sporting.

Clawclawclaw wrote:That's my honest reaction.

So, are you a new troll or just an alt for one of our normal lovely posters who happened to have a trollicious day?

i was surprised by all the crazy hairdos the profs were sporting.

This, you see, is one of the upsides of academia. Crazy hair is a badge of honor rather than a reason to receive a pink slip

How did they get Bill Lumbergh to emcee the morning?

Esc wrote:

Clawclawclaw wrote:That's my honest reaction.

So, are you a new troll or just an alt for one of our normal lovely posters who happened to have a trollicious day?

Don't even blame me. I actually enjoyed the first day of orientation. The oath was kind of cheesy, but it raises some issues that are important to start thinking about early in one's career.

Clawclawclaw wrote:How did they get Bill Lumbergh to emcee the morning?

lol

Clawclawclaw wrote:How did they get Bill Lumbergh to emcee the morning?

I'll be honest, this actually did occur to me when he walked on stage.

Actually, anybody know how old Sokolow is? He's been teaching at UT 28 years and before that, attended law school, got a masters in art history, clerked, one or two other details, he's got to be near 60, but I'd have pegged him as mid-40s.

Daico wrote:

Clawclawclaw wrote:How did they get Bill Lumbergh to emcee the morning?

I'll be honest, this actually did occur to me when he walked on stage.

Actually, anybody know how old Sokolow is? He's been teaching at UT 28 years and before that, attended law school, got a masters in art history, clerked, one or two other details, he's got to be near 60, but I'd have pegged him as mid-40s.

--ImageRemoved--

I'm not saying I know, just...ya know...

OperaAttorney wrote:
I enjoyed listening to the different clinical profs (especially Prof. Buehl, my section faculty adviser) and don't think they laid it on "too thick." Since we already have enough pressure (e.g., desire for prestige, loans, living expenses, lifestyle choices, etc.) to "sell out," it only makes sense (to me, at least) for the school to feature mainly people--with fancy JD's--who've chosen to pursue non-lucrative yet highly fulfilling public-interest careers.

I'm not sure it can really be called selling out, though. The panelists in our section said that only about 25% of the lawyers who want to do PI can actually get in (probably 80% for our school). I presume this is because there's only so much non profit money to go around. Nor should there be anything wrong with a career in business, so long as you enjoy the work you're engaged in and it provides value to society. (so tax law might be out, but M&A might be in)

Esc wrote:
As a tried and true public interest groupie, I have to agree that they laid it on a little thick. The immigration and criminal defense clinic professors were very interesting, but I felt that they were supremely adequate to represent the clinic program; IMO the domestic violence clinic prof's presentation was unnecessary and over the top, and very lecturing in an unpleasant, "in your face" way.

I realize that, given the abysmally small proportion of UT grads who go into public interest, they are trying hard to promote this, but I think they should have recognized the reality that most of us will end up in private firms, and provided a speaker who could talk on this subject. That would have provided pertinent information without turning anybody off from the public interest clinic concept.

I'm surprised to hear that the panelists in your section seemed harsh like that. Ours in section 4 were great, and got along very well. Personalities, maybe?

I don't think it was personalities. The third panelist coming from what she referred to as "the hood" apparently didn't respect the other panelist the second she heard he is from a highly ranked big law firm. He discussed some of the realities of pro bono in big law firm settings, and she interrupted with comments along the lines of "hey this is a seminar to encourage people to do PI work, perhaps you should stfu". I don't think they had ever met before but she was ready to interrupt every ten minutes to make a jab at this guy.