Top Law Schools

wrote:Things Emory is not entitled to: any alumni gift from anybody in the class of 2011.
How I will win through giving: Give advice to everybody about why they should not go to Emory Law.

BlueDiamond wrote:this was just a terrible speech on every level..

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

Tanicius wrote:

BlueDiamond wrote:this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is not hypocritical at all.

emorystud2010 wrote:Seriously? Can we ever get some positive publicity?

flcath wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

BlueDiamond wrote:this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is not hypocritical at all.

I'm with you, except for the last line.

Dude, the legal education establishment she works for is what caused the legal industry to cease being a 'profession.' I already said I thought the content was fine, but to hear it from a law professor is irritating.

Hurricane Katrina victims need to "get over" that, too, but they probably don't want to hear it in a speech from GWB.

Tanicius wrote:

BlueDiamond wrote:this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is not hypocritical at all.

2011Cycle wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

BlueDiamond wrote:this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is not hypocritical at all.

The speech only seems hypocritical when considered along the stated and inferred impressions one received from the prospective student literature, viewbooks, and in person discussions with admissions reps at LSAC fairs. When considered alone, the speech is a reasonable counterweight to the marketing/advertising literature which most law schools provide to applicants. yes, graduation may not be the best forum for her opinions which for the most part are truisms, but once the sting of the timing dulls, the truth is a good input to entering 0L's like myself.

I watched the Emory law graduation speech. If this speech was given to the incoming 1L class on the first day of orientation, I might say it was a great speech. In a sense, the professor isn't saying anything all that different from what the people on this board say - that lawyering can suck, that the biglaw jobs don't exist, and that new graduates are going to have to set their sights low. She acknowledges that a good percent of the graduates have no jobs. The problem is, she is telling this to graduates who are going to be in debt hell for the rest of their lives.

If this kind of speech was given to all incoming law students on the first day of orientation when a tuition refund could still be had, and if the law schools' websites and printed promotional materials reflected the realities the professor cited in her speech, then I would say that the law schools were being responsible and honest.

To tell a group of graduates who have taken out three years worth of loans to just get over it and have a good attitude about things is below disgusting. When you have one or two thousand dollars worth of loans to pay off every month, and the credit card bills that piled up when you were paying expenses that you couldn't afford because you gave up three years of income to go to law school, you don't need to get over it or have a better attitude. You need adequate income or a way out of debt. Sallie Mae won't cash your positive attitude.

May 26, 2011 6:04 PM

xchel2828 wrote:I found this comment on TTR, and it pretty much expresses how I feel about this "speech:"

I watched the Emory law graduation speech. If this speech was given to the incoming 1L class on the first day of orientation, I might say it was a great speech. In a sense, the professor isn't saying anything all that different from what the people on this board say - that lawyering can suck, that the biglaw jobs don't exist, and that new graduates are going to have to set their sights low. She acknowledges that a good percent of the graduates have no jobs. The problem is, she is telling this to graduates who are going to be in debt hell for the rest of their lives.

If this kind of speech was given to all incoming law students on the first day of orientation when a tuition refund could still be had, and if the law schools' websites and printed promotional materials reflected the realities the professor cited in her speech, then I would say that the law schools were being responsible and honest.

To tell a group of graduates who have taken out three years worth of loans to just get over it and have a good attitude about things is below disgusting. When you have one or two thousand dollars worth of loans to pay off every month, and the credit card bills that piled up when you were paying expenses that you couldn't afford because you gave up three years of income to go to law school, you don't need to get over it or have a better attitude. You need adequate income or a way out of debt. Sallie Mae won't cash your positive attitude.

May 26, 2011 6:04 PM

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/20 ... l#comments

Tanicius wrote:The criticisms of her speech seem to make no distinction between the professor and the school. What the school did was bad. The professor is just giving legitimate advice.

f7u12 wrote:And yet people keep enrolling at Emory.

xchel2828 wrote:

Tanicius wrote:The criticisms of her speech seem to make no distinction between the professor and the school. What the school did was bad. The professor is just giving legitimate advice.

No one is disputing that the "advice" given by the professor is not legitimate when taken without any context. The problem is that she gave this advice to new graduates, not prospective students, that have just spend 150K, if not more, in tuition and fees. But what it really messed up is that the professor's salary dependent directly on convincing these stupid students that their investment was worth it. It turns out it was not, and now, after the fact, the professor basically tells the new graduates "sorry, life is hard."

I also dispute the notion that the professor is giving these new graduates advice because advice implies BEFORE the fact. These dudes have already paid and the damage has been done. Instead of advice, I would call it a criticism. The professor is criticizing the "sense of entitlement" of these new graduates.

flcath wrote:

emorystud2010 wrote:Seriously? Can we ever get some positive publicity?

Emory and UVA have both been getting mega-screwed on ATL lately.

Though there's always a pretext, I highly suspect Elie just doesn't like the South.

flcath wrote:

emorystud2010 wrote:Seriously? Can we ever get some positive publicity?

Emory and UVA have both been getting mega-screwed on ATL lately.

Though there's always a pretext, I highly suspect Elie just doesn't like the South.

xchel2828 wrote:

f7u12 wrote:And yet people keep enrolling at Emory.

How can people be so stupid?

f7u12 wrote:And yet people keep enrolling at Emory.