Suffolk University Law School

Suffolk Law is a non-top ranked school in Boston, MA. It is in an area overburdened with attorneys (Boston has a higher per capita lawyer ratio than even NYC), and competes with such stalwart  law schools as Harvard, BC, BU, Northeastern as well as New England Law and Roger Williams Law.

I just completed my first year at Suffolk Law and this is what I think of it so far.

Overall, my 1st year of law school was both harder and easier than anticipated. You have everyone tell you how terrible and hard it will be, to forget about even thinking about getting good grades, and how the teachers will be using an arcane Socratic method which will require you to learn everything on your own. The first year is not that bad. It is however difficult. I saw many a girl have a nervous breakdown and start crying. People stopped caring for themselves during finals and would be seen all haggardly, unkempt, unshaven, and otherwise completely disheveled (myself included). I do not normally stress out, and I was stressed, I was more stressed than I have ever been before and I have run a business. It was difficult but entirely do-able, and to be honest it is perfectly possible to get through.

Some people dedicated their entire lives to school. I mean Saturday morning at 8a they are in the library, and during the week they do not leave the library on a daily basis until 9p. They would not go out on weekends. They would spend the two months before finals cooped up studying with singular purpose. That was not me, I cannot do that. I would say I was one of the more laid-back students. I would go to classes in the morning, go back to my apartment then head out to the gym, eat lunch, then go back to the library at around 3-4 for like 5 hours or so, oftentimes less. It was balanced and worked well for my night-owl lifestyle. Not terrible.

Law School is not undergrad, it is not partying, booze, and chilling out all day grilling and in otherways being as useless to society and your self as you can possibly imagine and loving every second of it. Law School is work and it is serious. The people are different as well; in high school a majority of people didn't care, in college a lot of people didn't care, in law school everyone cares, and a majority care way too much.

When you go through your first year of law school, some things happen. 1) You drink a lot more coffee or energy drinks or those 5-hour energy shots or other coffee-equivalents. A lot more. 2) you drink more, or perchance that is just me. 3) You find out what a gunner is. 4) you gain weight (I gained like 20 pounds in my first semester, and that is when I got a gym membership again and got into Crossfit, but that is for another entry). 5) relationships sputter and fail, falling from their skyhigh in a fiery blaze. Most relationships fail, my friends relationship failed, a girl I know who was in a 6 year relationship had that end, my own relationship ended. (I talked to someone though who is still going strong with their significant other, I feel like law school is a very difficult test for a relationship but can make it stronger if it works, if a relationship survives a 1st year than you have a keeper!)


Let me tell you about Suffolk law in particular now instead of generalized 1st year law doom-and-gloom.

First off, lets talk about what is sometimes taboo to talk about. Stats and getting in to Law School. It is not often talked about but it is sought after knowledge and valuable to have and can help with expectations. I was not accepted to any law school better than Suffolk Law, I was offered a 25k a year merit scholarship to New England Law. I went to Bryant University and got a 3.7 there, and got a 158 on my LSAT (btw, Kaplan class I took was great, forced my procrastinating self to study, increased my score about 8 points, I have heard that the Princeton class is not as good, but this is just word of mouth, I do recommend you take a class to improve your score, it is worthwhile). I know a person who did well in undergrad and got a 156 and got accepted to Suffolk Law, another person who got a 160 on LSAT's and did very well (3.7 or better) in undergrad and got a good scholarship to come to Suffolk. I know another person who had below a 3.0 in undergrad and a 168 on the LSAT and got accepted. This is all in reference to the day division by the way.

Suffolk Law has some great teachers and also some terrible teachers. Professor Glannon and Blum are incredible professors. There are also some terrible teachers, and if you ask students they will tell you (cough...Dodd...cough). Greaney, a former MA SJC Justice, teaches criminal law at Suffolk. Overall, the teachers are good. Some classes you will have to teach yourself the material, other classes it will be difficult not to learn it (Glannon is the Man). I did not have a single "mean" teacher, the kind you see in those movies like The Paper Chase. Most teachers did not use the Socratic method, where they basically bounce questions back and forth with students until they figure it out themselves and answer their own questions. As a sidenote, the teachers of Suffolk Law overall have a much higher rating on RateMyProfessor.com than other law schools in the area.

Suffolk Law has some advantages over other schools. It is a huge law school, one of the biggest in the country, and so has alumni all over the Boston area, and the courts in the area. Their is a great alumni connection and networking opportunity. However, Suffolk law is not well known outside of the Boston area (excluding RI), so I would not recommend going to Suffolk Law if your ultimate goal is to practice in another market (however, I know a few students who plan on graduating and practicing in NYC and other areas and they are doing fine, one got an internship in NYC). The awesome Professor Blum has created a program for 1st year students called First Year Student Internship Program (FYSIP), where she hooks up like 80 students with an internship with a judge for the summer, which I am currently doing and can say is an awesome opportunity (2 of the judges I work with had Blum as a teacher, and she is well known and regarded in the country, and she loves to teach, great lady). FYSIP is but one example of how Suffolk Law creates opportunities for students.

Law School is graded on a curve, Suffolk Law and most other schools grade on a 3.0, which is a B. The curve has a strange effect on people. It makes people more competitive and sometimes petty, so beware. It also has the side-effect of making it really difficult to gauge how well you are doing. I have never done so bad as I did on my Law School final exams, NEVER have I done so poorly, knew so little, or had to stumble so blindly through an essay answer. Never have I not had enough time to get through so little of what I meant to write. Never have I had to qualify so many statements so many times and in other instances quite simply write "I do not know..." Never have I felt so poorly leaving a test. Yet, that is how it is supposed to be. (espeically prof. Brown's property final, which is the most saddening monstrosity I have ever stood face to face with in my life, whose sole purpose was to obliterate your maligned belief of understanding and comprehension into a million pieces and then shit on those million pieces without even having the decency to pretend it cares what it has done to your poor and mistreated psyche [his test was hard]). Yet in the end, it does not matter how well you did, or how many questions you answered correctly, it only matters how well you did compared to others. If others mucked up, and you mucked up slightly less, congrats.

OK, well after that, let me just say I was planning on taking time off of law school if I scored in the bottom half of my class. I was going to go back to my painting company or look for a job. That is because unlike undergrad, where I was a politics major and loved to study and write my papers and basically go to class, I dreaded law. I found it boring and tedious. Oftentimes I did not find it interesting. It is difficult to work hard on something, it is difficult to wake up early to study, when you do not enjoy what you are studying and doing.

Law practice is very formulaic and strict with rules of writing, form, font, fashion, and citation (the Bluebook is the bane of my very existence and the spawn of Hades himself, placed on earth to waste time and make the world and overall darker place to exist upon). I have trouble writing a paper in the correct size font (I wrote a memo for Legal Practice Skills in the wrong size font and the prof. was not too happy about that), let alone follow the rules of the Bluebook. The rules and format and strictness bothers me. I just want to write what I feel and if I cite it using See or See also is your damn problem.

Also, law in many ways is holding back society, and no that is not harsh. First of all, lawyers are paid way too much (even though I am interning for no money right now, fml). This is because it is a self perpetuating system where the government increases in size and regulates and controls more, more rules means more laws means more complexity means more lawyers and more work. Furthermore, bars to entry such as an undergraduate degree, law degree of three years education or more, LSAT, Bar exam for every state, and an ABA requirement to do anything or even have a school get accredited. The ABA does not let you go to law school fulltime and work more than 20 hours a week. These barriers to entry and licensure laws (read my post on licenses) act as a bar to entry and increase the cost of legal services. Also, the courts create very high stakes, Pennzoil v. Texaco saw Texaco fined for 10.3 BILLION, and forced Texaco to declare bankruptcy. When the law has such power, people will pay big bucks to not lose.

Let me end on a better note. Not all areas of law practice are bad. I want to do something within law which I find exciting and which will do society good, sometimes you need to fight fire with fire, and that is what I hope to do. I am excited to take my second year classes which are more focused to find out what I enjoy. A law degree opens up your options and is an invaluable tool. I hope to use it well.

MSNBC!

First off, before I write what I want to here, let me preface it with this disclaimer. I watch MSNBC and FOX news most of the time when getting my news from TV (My favorite news programs are Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano and Stossel). I do not agree with 95% of what I hear from either network. I watch them because it interests me and helps me understand what the base liberals and base conservatives believe and are arguing. It is a peek into the political machine and what they want the masses to believe and where the want to shape the conversation towards. Just because I am about to rail on MSNBC does not mean I blindly follow and grovel to Fox 'n friends. Too often people make the mistake when I am making a rational argument to become defensive, and start attacking the typical position a person opposed to their ideas would follow (True Example: When I argued the debt ceiling created a great opportunity to take action to lower the national debt and make real change, my liberal friend defended saying "well, we need to cut defense spending too!!!, I agree with that, it was an assumption and wrong, and often done, it is a red herring/attack of character, it is a fallacious argument to make). With this disclaimer, let me say MSNBC tonight is ridiculous!

A new economic unemployment report came out, and the employment statistics are miserable! I believe only about 24k jobs were created. That is not even on pace with the growth in population. This is but another sign that the current governmental plan of Keynesian inspiration to restart the economy is failing. It failed for FDR and put us into the greatest recession this country has ever known, and Obama is looking to have the same mistake happen again (we must learn from history or we are bound to repeat it!). But that is neither here nor there, the point I want to make is MSNBC's response to this news.

There are a number of responses to this news, a news organization could talk about the plight of the unemployed, about businesses moving overseas (human stories and sensational stories), they could talk about the reasons behind why the unemployment is going up, whether they were to blame it on Bush (the cliche and in thing to do nowadays [sometimes rightful sometimes not]), or blame it on Obama, or simply make an economic argument between Keynesian and free-market economics. You could talk about the impact of this news on the upcoming Presidential contest, or its effect on the ongoing debate regarding the debt ceiling. All of the above are expected and educational (in different ways) ways for a news organization to present this information.

What did MSNBC do!? MSNBC spent their time on Chris Matthews and Last Word with O'Donnel talking about how the Republican Presidential Nominees all released statements that they were glad that unemployment is up! (their statements were blaming the dismal economic numbers on Obama). MSNBC argued that they are happy that it is down and that they benefit from it. Chris Matthews posed a question to Michael Steele (former RNC chairman) along the lines of "Is it right for the Republican Nominees to take joy in the plight of the poor and unemployed?" (Michael Steele by the way did a great job on the show standing up for what he believed in and not allowing the other people to push him over, admirable job Steele!)

What is ridiculous about this is that a) the Republicans are more likely to get elected if the economic indicators are bad, this is a political fact, and the Republicans are going to use it, as Democrats would in a similar position, and as I believe was used against Bush when the economy was sputtering. It is a political fact and to make it out into a story is a hypocritical lie and points fingers and highlights what is unimportant, it is a distraction from real problems our country faces! Second, they are obviously not glad people are suffering, but they believe the country will be better and more people will have jobs under their plan, or at a minimum want to offer an alternative plan then Obama's, which is a better sell when the shit is hitting the fan.

Give us real news damn it.

2nd disclaimer: I wrote this too quickly and just tried a new drink mix which did not work so may have affected my writing, it is called the FireMeister and it tastes terrible, it is too syrupy and strong. 1 part Jagermeister, 1 part Fireball Whiskey, splash of cola, ice. NOT GOOD!

truth

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and
unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the
discomfort of thought."  JFK

A Fork In The Road

Rahm Emanuel once said  "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." He took flak for it, but their is truth in it, no matter how difficult to swallow or accept. Dire circumstances breed extraordinary results. hardship and catastrophe can be a uniting and clarifying experience. Think of the camaraderie, patriotism, and focus after the 9/11 attacks. Think about the determination of the country after Pearl Harbor. These terrible events, these crises, focused our country. Although a crisis allows for extreme action, it does not follow that such action is always good, or in the right step. The stock market crash of 1929 created the New Deal, a perfect example of a serious crisis creating serious change in the wrong direction. Ironically enough, the New Deal would lay the foundation for our current serious crisis, the looming debt facing our country, driven by our entitlement promises such as social security and medicare (social security being a creation of FDR) and the ever increasing size and burden of our government.

The looming debt facing America is the greatest threat to our prosperity, it is our greatest security concern, more so than war, terrorism, or nuclear proliferation. Part of its great threat is its slow but steady rise. It is not sudden and explosive, it is not stunningly yet darkly visual, it does not kill people directly, it sulks, it grows steadily like an undiagnosed cancer, it consumes, and it is pushed to the back of our brain. Ignorance is bliss. Yet such bliss will come at a heavy price. If our country does not begin to move to shrink government spending, if entitlements are not reformed, than the promises of an age past will destroy the country for our children and their children. The debt to GDP ratio is approaching 100% in this country. Our crisis is real, the Congressional Budgetary Office (CBO) even states that we are heading towards an infeasible future which requires drastic change, and the CBO is a neutral optimistic governmental organization.

2 paths lay ahead, and a choice is imminent. The debt cap will force a vote by Congress by August, or the United States will  shut down and likely default. This is, as Rahm likes to say, an opportunity which should not go to waste. This is an opportunity to not push the threat to the back of our minds and push it off as inconsequential. This is not the time to once again blindly and meaninglessly set a new higher debt cap so that it can be raised later. This is the time for that contingent of Congress with the principle and wherewithal to make the difficult but necessary decision, which is already long overdue, to set our country on a path to prosperity instead of forfeiture. The other path would be the same path we have been following since that last great catastrophe of the Great Depression. It would to turn a blind eye and continue spending more and more and promising beyond our means. Money for votes is what it really is.

We need to make the difficult decision to cut spending, and that includes subsidies (to gas companies and ethanol and electric car makers and solar plants and farming and certain research and College), military, welfare programs, pork, special interests, more state autonomy and less federal hierarchy, but most importantly we need to address entitlements. If we do not, then we are no better than Greece. Greece has gluttonously and recklessly spent themselves fat, they have spent and spent, believing it would bring no consequences, and now that the reality of their folly is apparent, they are too drunk on their unpaid-for privileges to let go, to accept they cannot afford what they have. They are rioting in the streets, public transportation and life as normal has come to a screeching halt as protests and revolt and fire spreads throughout Athens. Greece is the poor man who buys a mansion, than resits foreclosure as he barricades the door with a shotgun.

The decision laying before the US will show whether we are a gluttonous Greece, or the America our forefathers foresaw, a country of prosperity though liberty, including the liberty from an overarching, overspending, over promising government by and for the people.

FDA PLAYS GOD

The FDA today allowed a hearing on its approaching decision to ban the sale of Avastin in the US for women with advanced breast cancer. The FDA initially allowed the drug on the market, since it was meant for women with metastatic breast cancer, a deadly cancer leaving women with few options of therapy, but after conducting three trials with no benefit, they are pulling the drug.

You can find the article here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/business/29drug.html?_r=1

The FDA, its board and its director are making a rational self-preserving decision. The FDA will be held responsible when a drug kills a patient, it will be chastised by the government, and someone will have to take the fall and the blame. When a drug is allowed on the market and saves 1, but accelerates or aggravates the condition of 9 others, despite the desperate need those patients harbor for any means to survive, the FDA will be criticized. A less publicized evil, a less sensational and public death, is the death of the woman with metastatic breast cancer who has no option to turn to, no matter how infinitesimal the chance of recovery that option may provide, it is still an option the FDA has prohibited. That woman's death will go unsung and un-blamed. The FDA will not have to answer to it, and the FDA can hide behind its numbers and studies, telling a woman it is too dangerous for them to have the option to take.

Priscilla Howard, who has survived with advanced breast cancer for 32 months while taking Avastin, rebutted the FDA's studies with the simple truth that "despite the potential side effects from Avastin, metastatic breast cancer has only one — death,” a poor option is better than no option. An arduous recovery better than no recovery, and a risk for life better than a sentence of death.

The FDA serves an important purpose in their testing of drugs. Consumers must be informed when making decisions. Competent understanding of the risks and rewards of different therapies is a fundamental cornerstone of a marketplace which leads to rational risk-managed decisions. The risk averse may avoid Avastin, and others likely would not. The FDA should inform consumers, but should not dictate life and death decisions for them. People should not have to flee the country to save their life. People should not die waiting for a drug to be released which can save their life. The FDA has killed more people waiting for a life saving drug than it has saved from preventing harmful unproven drugs from entering the market. Allow drugs onto the market, and have it clearly stated that they are not FDA approved. If studies are done and they are unsafe, inform consumers they have a FDA warning.

The FDA is not our parent, it is not looking out for our best interest, it is looking out for its own interests, which inadvertently leads it to playing God, which no one should do, especially not the Government.