Snooker wrote: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.
"hey this is a seminar to encourage people to do PI work, perhaps you should stfu"?? Did she say something that bad? Or was that just your interpretation?