UMN-3L wrote:Touchy, touchy, Daniel. (If I cared, I'd point out that I have never heard of 2Ls receiving offers for permanent employment after graduation before their summer clerkships, so you're probably grandstanding if you claim that your career situation is "more promising" than mine is, "at this point." Although how that in any way relates to the debate at hand, except in your own hypersensitive, uber-combative perception of reality, I honestly don't know. But don't worry, I'm really not as committed as some to embroidering my online persona--I have a real life identity--so feel free to continue the braggadocio.) Perhaps you were so incensed by my critique of your unprofessional conduct that you didn't process this comment (which I've repeated multiple times): I have no personal animus against you. I do not wish you ill; I just don't think that you represent the majority of UMN students.
What is wrong with you? Seriously, do you have some sort of mental problem? You
started this crap about my career with your bizarre fixation on how much "damage" the thread I posted here will cause my career. I point out that my career prospects are doing quite well, thank you very much. I was responding
to you, and now you're acting like I brought it up out of nowhere? As if I were trying to show off? Idiot? You
brought it up.
And while it may upset your snooty, myopic worldview, not everyone's future plans revolve around siphoning fecal matter out of a "senior partner's" tightly clenched sphincter. In fact, I feel fairly comfortable saying right here that I have absolutely zero respect for anyone with the title of "senior partner." Am I blowing your mind? And you know what else? I'm not going to do a summer clerkship. I'm not applying anywhere for a summer clerkship. Not looking, not interested. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, if someone begged
me to take a summer clerkship, I'd decline. And you know what I think about your "3L advice"? I think you can shove it. I need your career advice like I need an ice pick in my eye socket. I'm sure your head is about to explode, since it simply does not compute that a 2L would not supplicate himself entirely to the mentorship of a 3L, who is offering career advice
and paternalistic admonitions.
And here's the coup de grâce: I'm not going to work in law after I graduate!
UMN-3L wrote:I felt compelled to create an alternative thread (which you, as would any troll, I suppose, have relentlessly tried to dominate; did I ever post on your obscenity-laden thread?) for three reasons:
Troll? Again, troll? Why don't you look up the definition of "troll" before you blindly hurl insults. And the vast majority of the obscenity you will find on the other thread is coming from two or three UMN loyalists much like yourself.
I will grant that you
never posted on that thread. No, no. Instead, you started a new thread, which you kicked off by citing
the other thread, undermining my credibility, characterizing me as "angry" (from which I suppose you infer "unreasonable"), and posting at length about how much "damage" this will do to my "career" (as you continue to do). So, yeah, you chose a considerably more underhanded route than your obscenity-spewing brethren.
UMN-3L wrote:1) I disagree with your sensationalist characterizations of our school.
There are many flaws in your presentation; your vituperative claims about the school and long-winded characterizations of how you ended up in the bottom quartile are specious and self-serving. And they reveal a highly suspect motive for your multimedia campaign against the school. Most of us just don't have the time or impetus to engage you point-for-point and showcase these glaring fallacies. Your argumentative strategy is based on sheer stamina. Unfortunately, lawyers are rewarded for concision, not obstinate, irrational repetition.
Sensationalist? Flaws? Specious? Glaring fallacies? Your merely declaring
such characterizations does not make them the case. When someone presents a fallacious argument against me, I don't just say
it's a fallacy. I explain why
it's fallacious -- as I've been doing with your fecund posts. So, where has my
reasoning been fallacious? Point it out. Diagram an argument and show me where I've gone wrong. Do you even know what a fallacy is
And I mentioned the Examsoft snafu in passing in response to a question. It's you
and the other imbecilic UMN "defenders" who have brought this incident up over and over again (usually in a misguided attempt to imply that I couldn't
get better scores, by omitting the additional information that I was in the top 10% the very next semester). And yet again
like a broken record, you impute that this was a major reason for my negative characterization of UMN, even though I've provided scads of other substantive reasons why UMN is an abysmal school, which you conveniently "forget" to address.
UMN-3L wrote:2) I think that your experience is not representative of our school and is a product of your own "unique" personality.
I hate to break it to you, Daniel, but, since you seem to have some trouble understanding this one fundamental truth: law school (if it's any good) is tough. It has to be to prepare you for the legal field. If it were easy to get (and stay) in the top quartile, the quartile system would be moot. UMN is a good law school, therefore students who come here will nurtured but not coddled. If a student comes to UMN with a chip on his shoulder, convinced that the rules apply to everyone but him, he will quickly learn otherwise (as you did, Daniel, during you ExamSoft "snafu"). If you can't function, i.e. can't be bothered with deadlines, you will be penalized. Period. Of course, as a consolation, you can spend countless hours after the fact crafting an alternative reality online to solace yourself.
Alternate reality? You're
the one who keeps bringing up the Examsoft snafu. I'm over it. In fact, I'm ready to be done with this place altogether. All I've done was to describe what happened, and what the school is like. I'm the one who posted actual pictures of the dump of a school. I've tried to keep my opinions close to the facts. And I've provided a lot
of facts. Your posts by contrast tend to focus on fantasizing about my career, speculating about my motives, and lecturing the world about the hiring practices of law firms. Which leads me to point out: You are not a lawyer.
You have never hired anyone to work at a law firm. What you know about law firm hiring practices is not information that anyone else couldn't discover on their own. You have no privileged information in this regard, because you are just another law student
. I'm sure you're going to be obnoxiously preachy when you finally land that big law job, but you just aren't in a position to be quite
that douchy just yet.
I find it ironic that you accuse me of being "repetitious." Now I'll admit that it's true, I keep pointing out that I thought the school was a piece of crap well before the exam policies would have any effect. I keep pointing out that I followed all the rules, and that I did
download the software and I did
log in to my account, but that the exams inexplicably failed to download, despite my doing everything I was supposed to do. And I keep pointing out that this is really a pretty minor reason not to come to UMN, compared with the myriad other faults I have enumerated. So, I apologize for being "repetitious," but if you'd stop repeating the same refuted claims over and over, then you'd save me the trouble of refuting them over and over. How about that?
And by the way, the reason I call you "condescending" is because you use phrases like, "I hate to break it to you, Daniel, but, since you seem to have some trouble understanding this one fundamental truth..." Now, I hate to break it to you
, but that's called "condescending." And that's fine, if you want to take that tone. Just don't deny it, when it's so obviously what you're doing.
UMN-3L wrote:3) I think that your behavior on this forum is professionally counter-productive and sets a bad example.
For everyone else who has or would like a professional career (excluding Daniel, of course, since he is obviously above such plebian concerns): whatever your personal opinion is, you may not want to become known as the person who publicly refers to his or her school as a "big brick of sh*t." Rumor flies fast in the legal community (Above the Law, anyone?) and online childishness like that violates the professional standards of every single legal work environment I can think of off the top of my head. A prolific online history of smear campaigns against one's educational institution would probably make most employers skittish about hiring [Blah, blah blah...]
Seriously, will you ever
just shut up about my career? I do not respect your opinion. I do not want your advice. My post-law school plans are more than satisfactory, and they don't involve legal work. Even if they did, I still
would not want your advice. I could not possibly care less about your advice. I consider it worthless. I find litter on the street more valuable than your advice. Do not give me any more advice. Seriously, you sound like you're retarded when you keep offering me this vapid advice about managing my "online identity." Get it through your thick skull, I think your knowledge about the legal profession is useless. Even if it weren't, I still
wouldn't want to hear it.
It is so
freaking obvious what you're doing. Here's your bizarre little plan: you're childishly trying to "scare" me into not posting anymore, by regaling me with "scary stories" about how someone's "online reputation" hurt their future career prospects. It's not working. It's not going to
work. And I frankly find your whole way of thinking disgusting
. I think that anyone who's unhappy with their school should articulate loudly and clearly why that is, so that other people can avoid that place if they anticipate being similarly unhappy there. You do realize that it's because of
duplicitous, smarmy, unctuous people like you that students end up at schools they end up hating. You are the problem.
And as has been discussed above, your bizarre fantasy where some senior partner at a law firm refuses to hire me because of what I've posted here is totally bunk anyway. Even if employers were leery of hiring disloyal employees, or people with checkered histories, due to stuff they dredge up on the internet, I seriously doubt anyone equates employer loyalty with school loyalty. And I would be very
surprised if any law firm would even care
that a law student posted negative things (like... pictures of his school) on an online forum for law students to talk about their law schools. Why would they hold that against anyone? Seriously, I haven't done anything even slightly wrong here. My posting here is neutral at worst. Indeed, I'd like to think it's been helpful to prospective students. And there have been a number of posts (and I've received a large number of PMs) indicating that my posts have been
useful. Why would an employer find that objectionable?
Now, since you don't seem to understand the difference between schools and employers, I will spell it out. An employer pays its employees. The employees are the ones working for the employer. With law school, it's the student who pays the school. The student doesn't owe anything
to the school beyond that. There is nothing in the admission packet, nor rules of conduct, nor anything else that requires or even suggests that "loyalty" to the institution is expected. Nor should it be. The way for a school to earn good reviews, satisfied alums, and loyalty is to be a good school
. This place is an absolute dump, both literally and figuratively. Since you conveniently ignore any criticisms of the school that don't involve me personally (which, as flattering as your obsession with me may be, is really just a smokescreen to divert attention from the fact that I've listed numerous problems with the school that don't
hinge upon my personal experience), allow me to repeat
them here: the crappy LW and PP adjuncts; the ridiculous and poorly-thought-out curriculum, which resulted in the decision to include P&P as a graded and required 1L course (contrary to the preferences of the professors of the course!), which caused threats of a walk-out and a widespread protest; the obsolete and failing classroom infrastructure (including extremely buggy Wifi); the laptop program, which forces
you to purchase the ugliest, heaviest, crappiest computer for quadruple what it's worth, and which does not allow you to opt out or upgrade the piece of junk; the embarrassingly poor placement outside of the Twin Cities legal market, which cannot come close to supporting the number of graduates that UMN (in addition to WM, UST, and Hamline) pumps out; and a generally recalcitrant and incompetent administration, which regards the students at the school as being an inconvenience.
And I'll leave you with this: you can dress up as "professionally" as you want. You can put on a sharp business suit, and you can get Office Depot to print you out some embossed business cards, and you can wrap your hair up in a bun, and you can affect a stilted "professional" diction, and you can go to sleep every night basking in the professionalism of your professional profession -- but here's the thing: all the "professionalism" in the world does not make up for being stupid. And your inability to comprehend or respond to new information, your inability to suss out details in argumentation, your poor reasoning skills, and your jingoistic, tribal insistence on toeing the company line all add up to one thing: "stupid." And you can be as "professional" as you please -- the only thing that makes you is a "stupid professional."