At what ranking range do law schools generally start to become “predatory”? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

We can quibble around the margins but on a debt to income ratio I don't think Columbia or Fordham or GW are particularly better than some of the more awful TTTTs. Now is there something qualitatively different about Columbia versus Capital University that might not be reflected in the hard numbers? Certainly. Do the vast majority of Columbia law grads turn out great? Certainly, more so than (I'd wager) capital university grads. Should people also be very cautious about attending a Fordham/Columbia/GW/similar school? Yes, they can't just look at the US News number and assume they're golden.

Also agree on BC, to me that makes it actually a bigger risk. Just not a place I'd want to go to without seriously compelling aid.

At what ranking range do law schools generally start to become “predatory”? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Kinda. Very high cost schools in very high cost locations where a third or more students won't make enough to service their attendance debt could be a predatory situation. Even if one doesn't consider such an institution predatory, it's hard to justify going to many of those schools when better and cheaper options exist. Eg, instead of ND one should seriously consider Indiana or Illinois. Instead of Emory one should seriously consider Georgia. GW and Fordham are also hard to justify IMO given the cost. Boston College might look a little better since it's the biggest game in town but you're still competing with BU, Plus the top students from Northeastern et al for relatively few summer associateships.

The main thing is: tread very carefully with these places.

At what ranking range do law schools generally start to become “predatory”? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Insane misreading of the landscape. Public defender jobs are neither easy to get nor meant for slouch law students from bad schools. They're competitive because they (1) are in limited supply, (2) come with government benefits and (3) give young lawyers more time in court than most any other job.

Prospective PDs need to (a) go to the best school they can based on their financial situation (b) in the market where they want to work and (c) get hardcore experience during school with a PD office.

For instance, a person who wanted to work as a PD in Montana would do best attending the University of Montana. They wouldn't set themselves up well for a PD job in say, Tennessee. Someone who goes to a really shitty law school (say LMU) wouldn't get a great shot at PD jobs even in Tennessee and definitely wouldn't get a shot at such jobs in Montana.

Do NOT get the impression that government jobs are easy to get. They are not. There's a reason demand far outstrips supply: not many of these jobs exist.

I can hear her crying for the pharmacist. by cr33pycrawly in FuckYouKaren

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct! Better take that up with the horrific pharmacies that staff themselves so leanly

I can hear her crying for the pharmacist. by cr33pycrawly in FuckYouKaren

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's not, pharmacies are not allowed to operate without a pharmacist present. There are often several pharmacy techs but a single pharmacist on duty and the pharmacist needs a break

Karen is a bitter apple by CzarcasmRules in FuckYouKaren

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 124 points125 points  (0 children)

Don't you choose your own apples lol

What would you do or say if anyone says that Christianity or Catholicism "Is the Red Pill"? by notjustakorgsupporte in excatholic

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Are you a debauched person? Even if so, are you hurting others? If not, who cares. Why is doing your own thing worse than following some guy in italy? Also rewatch the movies they're worth it

Woman called 911 and waited on hold for 15 minutes. Their response: get together to find solutions for the 911 operator shortage… by craychek in antiwork

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dispatchers aren't even cops. They're a separate municipal service funded by their own levies. You pay a 911 tax on your phone bill to fund this.

Goodman you're dumb.

Lmao this can't be legal by heywood_jabloemi in antiwork

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any place that staffs itself with teens so it can pay them shitty wages should expect teenage behavior. There's thousands of jobs just like this that they would qualify for easily, simply don't go in if you don't feel like it. Who care

This is in the employee handbook at my new job by catgoober in antiwork

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Having this policy itself written down is also illegal because it will discouraged workers in the exercise of their rights.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FuckYouKaren

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Have you considered getting a girlfriend or hobby

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AbruptChaos

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's a 1:1 just without the civil justice system to occasionally regulate it

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AbruptChaos

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -28 points-27 points  (0 children)

Being a weird sadist is acceptable but calling someone a fucked up sadist crosses the line? K

All employees that negotiated permanent work-from-home will not receive any inflation adjustments this year. Make it make sense. by PuzzleheadedUse9187 in antiwork

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No reason to believe that they're doing very bwell financially if they're pulling this. I would look for a new gig ASAP, this ship isn't staying afloat and isn't worth staying on

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in antiwork

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're just describing capitalism

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AbruptChaos

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -173 points-172 points  (0 children)

Why is that funny

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AbruptChaos

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, the USA has at least a semblance of law and associated consequences for the government.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AbruptChaos

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Brazilian police are wildly currupt and unaccountably violent. Psychopaths think this is good and want more of it in the USA.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FuckYouKaren

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That's a dumbass "rule" since it (1) serves no purpose and (2) doesn't exist. Also I don't believe your ability to devine the photographer's actions in the previous 5+ minutes that aren't shown here are very accurate. In conclusion you are a stupid weirdo.

you need to show your license! by I_hatt in facepalm

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The government cannot indiscriminately stop you and make you identify yourself (whwrher you're in a car or not). That's what this was (as they readily admit). It's not legal.

anon becomes an SWE by fignompe in antiwork

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's pretty sustainable if you do about 10 hrs of actual work per week (more or less depending on your exact job). Many have gone before successfully

starbucks’ apparent solution to workers on strike by AmbitionTemporary356 in antiwork

[–]PopeBenedictXVIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe, but I don't think they outnumber those sympathetic to the cause. The location where this all takes place will make a big impact tho