I’m also looking for an apartment in Palo Alto, California right now. I can’t believe summer will be here in just six weeks! I’ve started making tentative plans with the other UChicago Bay Area kids so hopefully I’ll have stuff to do, and I want to spend a decent chunk of time in San Francisco since I’ve never been there before. Also, at the end of my gig, I’ll be going to Lake Tahoe in late July for the Wheel reunion. We’re renting a huge lake house so that should be a blast.

Afterwards, it’s to Texas for a week or so, and on the way back I’ll drive up my car so that I can embark on the Ultimate Midwest Roadtrip that I’m planning with a friend from school. Two weeks, close to 4,000 miles of road to cover. The main points of interest are camping out in Yellowstone for a few nights and seeing Mt. Rushmore. But we also want to go horseback riding, do the whole B&B thing, see Amish country, visit ghost towns, go fishing or ziplining, hiking, etc. I’m excited. We’ll be traversing Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. I’ve never been to any of those states, so it should be an adventure.

That’ll bring me to late August, and school doesn’t start until late September. I’m definitely going to visit my sister and Dan in Houston at some point, and depending on the money situation I’m thinking a trip to New York or Boston (or both) is in order.

So, yeah. Lots of traveling ahead. Last quarter was fun with musical and Vis Moot activities, but I’m a little exhausted with it all, so I’m just going to focus on knocking out these last few weeks, and then it’ll be all travel, travel, travel.

EDIT: I wrote this post last week, remembered that I had thought I’d left something out, and I realized I didn’t even mention that I’m going to China in September! So, yeah. I’ve never been to China, so yay for new experiences.

Back in my working days, there was a girl who made a point of reminding my coworker, Beth, and I (Beth being black and myself being Asian) constantly of the “American ideal of beauty” which in her view consisted of “blond hair and blue eyes.” That, among a host of other instances, led to Beth and I having this running joke at work: whenever something happened relating to the fact that either she or I were minorities, we’d laugh and call it a “minority day.” After a while, the joke became “every day is minority day” because these things seemed to come up constantly and sometimes you have to just laugh because its so depressing it makes you want to cry.

Racism, discrimination, bigotry…whatever you want to call it, is probably the one topic I have the hardest time talking about, but I’ve been wanting to write about this for a while since it’s been coming up frequently. Being a minority has probably been the single most determinative factor in my personality — not because of being Asian, but because of how people view and treat Asian people. I know many people view being Asian as being one of the “good” minorities; I admit there were many times I’ve been given the benefit of the doubt or a free pass when I’ve gotten in trouble that probably had to do with my being Asian. That said, it comes with strings — being viewed as an outsider, being judged by your affiliation with a group instead of as an individual, having to fight against each person’s pre-conceived notions of what you’re like, etc. For whatever benefits being Asian might confer, being a minority in general is just often a very isolating and frustrating thing.

A difficult reality is that even people who you like and who genuinely care about you often just don’t “get” it and can’t empathize. My white friends honestly just don’t quite understand, and even my Asian friends who have resorted to just being around only other Asian people don’t entirely understand either. Adding to the issue is that being a minority is different depending on what type of minority you are. Therefore, someone who is gay or black has had to deal with certain very different sets of issues and therefore still can’t entirely empathize with someone who is Asian and vice versa. As a result, being a minority can often be incredibly isolating and alienating.

Discrimination can be very subtle and insidious and many people truly believe that it’s just in your head. I go back and forth on this all the time — I’ve been told by people who know nothing about my work experiences that I just “seem” like someone who works very hard, but that leadership is “probably not your thing.” It’s not true, and I’ve had to convince myself that people viewing me in that light is not related to stereotypes about Asian people, but deep down I know they are.

And just when you think you’re going crazy, someone pulls you aside and that someone tells you that you’re right — that some group of people who you’ve never felt accepted by, who seemed to judge you the second they saw you — is entirely, completely, terribly, bat-shit racist and says horrible things about Asian people when others aren’t around.

This happened recently, and I didn’t know how to feel about this at first. I think I mostly feel relieved to know it wasn’t just in my head and that there is nothing I can do about it. Fact is, if you’re in your mid-twenties and at one of the best law schools in the country and are still openly bigoted around your other openly bigoted friends, there’s probably not much anyone can do for you or them at this point. Still, that people like that exist is terrifying, demoralizing and sad to me.

The fact that these people and the girl I mentioned at the beginning of this post are all people who come from areas with very few minorities and went to colleges that were white-heavy (probably around 90%) reinforces my view that affirmative action is truly the only way to combat racism. Humans are wired to identify patterns, even subconsciously, and they require education to make them actively think about whether the “patterns” they think they are seeing are the result of a combination of societal, historical and cultural circumstances, and they have to actively consider whether they’re subconsciously inadvertently placing a disproportionate amount of emphasis on physical traits (e.g. skin color) to categorize people and the patterns they think they see. The urge to simplify may be natural. I think it’s often useless to be angry about it; it is an inherent drive that causes us to use very visible and easily identifiable physical characteristics (such as race) to categorize people — it’s theorized to be a result of evolution and need to simplify an overload of information in a complicated world — but it doesn’t mean that it’s right or that we shouldn’t fight it.

Fighting that inherent urge to stereotype requires that people actively assess and force themselves to view people as individuals as opposed to members of a group. Unfortunately, most people don’t do this and don’t have proper education on minority issues. As a result, affirmative action — putting them in contact with enough minorities that it breaks the mold somewhat of what they think they know — is the only other real solution to a problem that is still very alive today, even among the well-educated.

I was teased a little by friends for jumping on the Jeremy Lin bandwagon, especially given my often vocal lack of interest in sports, but I’m sticking to my guns. Unlike many Asian celebrities who are only half-Asian or who seem to have distanced themselves completely from typically Asian characteristics, the guy was a role model for the many, many people who have had the typical second-generation Asian experience, who aren’t self-hating Asians, who have had to contend with similar stereotyping and jeers that he experienced, and who want to be successful and accepted on their own terms. He represents a very visible example of facing the world to view Asians in a different light and to reconsider their preconceptions, and I will never be embarrassed that I find this to be uplifting and that it gives me hope.

“Ignorance and prejudice are the handmaidens of propaganda. Our mission, therefore, is to confront ignorance with knowledge, bigotry with tolerance, and isolation with the outstretched hand of generosity. Racism can, will, and must be defeated.” — Kofi Annan

I’ve actually been blogging a lot recently, just not here. Instead, I’ve been writing posts once a week for my Technology Policy class over here. It’s easily one of my favorite classes in school thus far since all we do is read about and talk about and write about techie stuff with other people who live/eat/breathe this type of thing — what’s not to love?

We also had the law school musical last weekend which may be one of my favorite things ever and which has landed me on the front page of our school’s website! Yay, even if I look silly! (Screenshot here.) There’s also a gallery here.

So, things have been busy, but good. I’m going to start guitar lessons next quarter, and my trip to Vienna, Austria for the Vis Moot International Commerical Arbitration competition will be in the beginning of next quarter, too.

Most of all, I’m excited for the upcoming summer in Palo Alto! Though, I still need to figure out living arrangements and whatnot, and I really want to plan a Napa Valley weekend! Luckily, a lot of the stuff I’ve done this year has reaffirmed that my summer gig was the right choice — such as my IP-based Finance class, Tech Policy class and the corporate venture capital project I’ve been working on for corporate lab (which got a shout-out in this article). So, yeah. Things are copacetic.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The general gist of the report is that while 1 in 7 households are considered poor (e.g. living on under $11,161 for a single person or $21,954 for a family of four), the poor in America don’t have it so bad — they often have “luxuries” such as refrigerators or cars. Furthermore, other media outlets reporting on the data have thought fit to compare these statistics to global statistics on poverty which make our poor seem almost wealthy in comparison.

There is no question that the welfare system in America is far from perfect. Without a doubt, there are abuses of the system, people who still fall through the cracks, etc. etc. — but just as we don’t simply abolish laws that are imperfect or we don’t scrap tax provisions that don’t entirely accurately capture their goals, the answer should in no case be to get rid of or cripple these programs that so many people depend upon. From John Henry Newman: “A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault. ”

For starters, crippling welfare programs is extremely short sighted. The problem for many of these people is that they have no safety net. For almost anyone I know, there were times when they have to borrow a few hundred or a few thousand dollars from mom and dad to help get them to a better place or to ward off an emergency which would leave them much worse off. By taking away the measly safety net that the poor have would be to introduce more people to disease, death and crime. Furthermore, the lives that the poor live tend to be extremely precarious. For someone who is employed at minimum wage and with a cheap apartment and a car, for example, an emergency leads to losing your car, leads to not going to work, leads to unemployment and by the time you get another job you’ve missed three paychecks so now you’re evicted and you end up finding a place to sleep with a voucher except the place is (almost always) unsafe so now your stuff is stolen and the problems accumulate even more from there.

Even for those that don’t end up running into emergencies, having a refrigerator and microwave is a necessity when eating out is not an option. Having a car is a necessity in order to have a job when you have to take whatever job you can get and you need to find a way to get to that job so you don’t get fired — especially when many cities and residents of those cities insist upon finding ways to separate low-income housing into the far reaches of the city so that it’s far away from where they work and live, even though they need the services of the people who can only afford that type of housing. Having a cell phone is a necessity nowadays given that there are no pay phones and if you don’t have stable housing it makes more sense than trying to set up a land line, and many things such as applying to jobs or to welfare programs or anything else really have people who need to be able to reach you somehow. Why do we want to wait until people don’t have the basic necessities to be fit to hold jobs in order to qualify them as being poor and in need of welfare? Isn’t it socially beneficial to assist them before they hit that point so they don’t simply become solely a drain on society and more likely turn to crime?

Furthermore, simply having a few non-essential possessions does not mean that their lives are not extremely difficult. For many, they’ve had ups and downs and, again, the problem is that they don’t have a safety net to catch them when they are down. So, to the extent that they have accumulated something that is non-essential (news reports go on and on about how some percentage have Xboxes — what is that worth, like $5-20?) does not mean that when they hit a low that they don’t need help, and furthermore it does not mean that it wouldn’t be socially ideal to provide welfare assistance.

For those that are unemployed, judging them is unfair. I know plenty of people with college degrees and no jobs; can’t even imagine how tough it could be if you have no degree, haven’t graduated from high school or have a criminal record of any sort. Even with a college degree and work experience, last year I spent some time applying to retail jobs (long story) and came up empty. The main thing that separates the unemployed on welfare from the unemployed with a fancy car and LV bag is the safety net that your parents and family provide.

Embracing the idea that not all our poor are homeless and living in rags means that they are not poor enough to bother with is simply a bad idea — we should be glad that we have been able to ward off abject poverty that would be even more draining on society and lead to more crime. Preventing problems is almost always less expensive than fixing problems that have already happened. Insurance companies know this which is why preventative care is almost always covered at a higher rate than other types of care — so why would we not apply basic business principles to our economy? It’s a common problem with any type of programs with a preventative component that critics will use any successes — however small — to attack the existence of the program. Environmental protection laws, rules regarding vaccines, and so on and so forth all are met with these criticisms. Still, it’s shocking that even as homelessness and unemployment rises steadily that people have the gall to depict poverty as being less of a problem.

I should also add that the comparison with global poverty is disingenuous. It costs more to live in America, duh. To the extent that our poor have “luxuries” such as clean water, it certainly does not mean that they are living it up nor does it mean that our welfare programs are generous beyond a point that is socially ideal.

Mostly, I just think it’s one thing to believe that it’s okay to live the best life you can even when others have it worse off and A WHOLE OTHER THING to live that type of life and then point to people who are so much worse off than you and make assumptions about how luxurious their life must be.

I had no problem with Professor Todd Henderson’s argument earlier this year that it should not be assumed that a household making over $400,000 a year would not have to make cuts if they were taxed at a higher rate. While the way he made the argument made a lot of people angry (e.g. making it personal), I thought it was worth introducing into the debate on taxes, even if I don’t think it should be determinative. In other words, I think it’s a legitimate concerns, but there are other legitimate concerns that may be and are likely greater.

I also had no problem with people in my classes making arguments about how “fairness” shouldn’t matter and that distributive justice should play no part in policy discussions — I only had a problem when those same people created a big fuss later about how it was “unfair” that they did not get free sandwiches at lunch and when they decried the free-food-giving mechanisms of the law school that resulted in their not being one of the 50 or so people to get free Jamba Juice. You would think that “unfairness” of that situation would make them realize why it is problematic that people born into a low socio-economic status or are discriminated against have disadvantages that we might want to correct, but I guess not.

Anyway, things are going well in general, but sometimes I read things and they make me sad.

Instead, I’ll talk about Los Angeles in general. The weather is so perfect it almost makes me wish I’d chosen another law school. Almost. Also, I had a celebrity sighting the first weekend I was here — it was Paul Dano at Katsuya in Studio City. It was actually Harry and his friend who recognized him; I had no clue but whatever. Oh, and I live a street away from a Jamba Juice, which is one of my favorite things. Yay.

Mostly, I’ve been reading a lot now that all law school stuff is completely done. I first read some fluffy stuff such as Mini-Shopaholic and some mysteries, but now that my brain feels rested again I’m reading Robert Graves’ I, Claudius, Shirley Jackson’s We Have Always Lived in the Castle, and I’m almost done with The Thirteenth Tale by Diane Setterfield. I was recommended Thirteenth by a roommate of mine four years ago and haven’t had a chance to get to it until now. So far I like it a lot. It’s definitely a book for book lovers.

Oh, one of the head honchos in my office mentioned to everyone that he really excited to go see Neil Gaiman talk — the co-author of Good Omens, which is in my top 5 of books and is the book I recommend to people the most — and I really wanted to commiserate with him about how awesome the book is since it’s not often I find people who have read it, but couldn’t without sounding like a total suck-up to everyone else. That crushed my spirit a little.

Still, all in all, things are good. The biggest gripe I have about my life here thus far is that I don’t have internet at my place since it’s still getting fixed and it sucks and is making my life difficult.

My first thought about Google Plus is that I like the privacy options more than Facebook. Facebook is sort of inscrutable in that you’re never quite sure if your privacy is going to appear the way you want it to unless you do a lot of checking — I actually have an extra account I use specifically to check to make sure my privacy settings are the way that I want them to be, which really shouldn’t be necessary — and Google+ does a better job of giving you options at the right places and telling you upfront who’s able to view what. No surprises about privacy and what’s being shown to whom is definitely the way to go.

Secondly, I like the interface more than I thought it would. It runs smoother and is easier to navigate than Facebook. It’s very user friendly, and dragging and dropping existing contacts into your circles is fun. Given that no one uses it yet (it was given a limited outside release just today), I’ll have to hold off on commenting on some of the functionality since I haven’t really fully seen it in action yet. I’m hesitant to post anything such as photos or whatnot since they make very clear that the beta is susceptible to hiccups, and especially given how searchable anything associated with Google is, I’m not looking to have my random photos strewn across the internet.

Other random thoughts — so far the Sparks functionality does nothing for me (info about subjects you’re interested in) since it’s too general as is to want to get that info from there. I really like their incorporation of the +1 thing however (similar to “liking” on Facebook except I like that it all appears in one “tab” as opposed to being incorporated into your profile) and I’m interested to see what they end up doing with it.

One minus for the service may end up being that it doesn’t require reciprocal adding of people. Meaning that I can add you to my circle of people and you can just ignore me. I’m not sure if the friend count is going to appear somewhere at some point, but if it’s anything like how twitter has played out, it seems to indicate there’s going to be a lot of people that become very preoccupied with having a good following to followers ratio (good meaning that a lower ratio is better). This could potentially lead people to want to stick to Facebook for their social media needs.

I think part of the reason Facebook has grown so rapidly is precisely because “friending” people is mutually beneficial to both parties — e.g. both have more “friends” and more access to information and a bigger network. To the extent that you give people incentives not to friend people, it’s probably a bad thing with regards to growth of the product. While this is offset by the fact that most people are already in the Google network, I still think if I have two options and in one of them I have more limited access to people and information, I’d be inclined to use the larger network more. I also think finding out you have mutual friends with someone — even if it’s just an acquaintance — is one of the best parts of Facebook, and a smaller network would serve to lessen that benefit.

I think the biggest plus for Google+ is that I have a lot of faith in their programming abilities and in their ability to grow Google+ more effectively than Facebook has done. Google is much better at providing options and functionality than Facebook, I think. There’s some obvious things that would make a transition easier such as importing your account from Facebook (I hope Facebook doesn’t de-activate the option that lets you download your information in response) which I assume will eventually be incorporated. Anyway, these are my thoughts. I’ll update as it goes along.

Personally, I like Barnes & Noble and have no moral qualms with large companies so long as their business practices do not edge on outright coercion or unfairly anti-competitive behaviors. That being said, I really do think Barnes & Noble is one of the last companies that should be using such allusions. I mean, I get that it’s also about the size of the devices, but it just sounds silly.

Anyway, I’ll chalk this up to an advertising fail. But I just had to point this out because seeing the ad first thing this morning literally made me laugh and get water all over the place.

The students in my class, despite also being stressed and busy, are still supportive and even fun to be around. We had a great first exec board meeting for the Intellectual Property Law Society where we discussed all the events we wanted to plan for next year. My 1L section this year easily had the best Bigelow fellow (a couple other sections claim the same thing, but unlike me they’re wrong). And while I may be biased, I do think that UChicago’s general way of teaching law is almost precisely the right balance of theory and practicality. I had an amazing group lunch with Professor Nussbaum, a woman who was a pioneer in her field, earlier this week. And Professors Strahilevitz and Levmore — I am definitely looking forward to taking more classes with them.

On our last day, Strahilevitz told us that if he had billions of dollars he would still teach 1L property which was just about the cutest thing ever and it made me feel all sniffly (I then imagined him teaching our class with a pimp hat, fur coat and gold chains, so that helped). I really don’t think you’ll find a class of kids who are fonder of their professors than us, even as these same people are in the process of crushing our souls and depriving us of our ability to function properly, thanks to finals. And I’m not saying this just because I’m some great mood. Let me be clear about this: finals blow. I’m subsisting on popsicle sticks, gum, granola bars and weird combinations of whatever is left in my refrigerator, as in: eggs + mustard + a hot-dog bun? I’ll take it!

But in all seriousness, I think the main thing I like about the professors and students is that the common view I hold about people is that I don’t agree with all their views, but I like hearing what they have to say. In fact, I’ve found that I have some fundamental points of dissension in different capacities with everyone, but I still love talking to them and it has easily made this experience worthwhile. I mean, having a job at graduation would also be key, but I’ll worry about that when the time comes closer.

It’s been a stressful year, for sure. And I’ve definitely had my fair share of set-backs and frustrations. But a lot of the stuff that guidebooks and stuff mention when you’re looking at schools — e.g. worrying about the quarter system, transportation, amenities — really are trivial when you like and are learning from the people around you. I think if I could give prospective students one piece of advice in choosing between similar school is that you should just try to get a feel for if you like the people and trust your gut. (I say similar schools because rankings/grants/job opportunities matter, unfortunately.) I spent a lot of time debating and making extensive excel spread sheets to compare schools, but I think I always knew I’d end up here because I liked the people I’d met from UChicago, and I liked the ideas the school embodied.

Speaking of the quarter system, it means that we finish later than almost everyone and reading these “I’m done!!!” posts on facebook for the past few weeks has been brutal. I wish I could filter them because they are killing me. I am happy for you, but I’d be happier if we were both done.

Oh, one final “also”, I hoped the ABA would just do something, but as a backup then it’s probably good that someone finally sued one of the many law schools that give false or intentionally misleading employment statistics. I wish you all the best, and I will think of your class action as I outline Rule 23 tomorrow. Back to work.

My favorite comment in this story is the one where someone says “i could probably write a better article if i was drunk and high.” Yup.

Why is this ratio (P/R) a silly comparison? After all, P/E is one of the most-used ratios to look at in valuating companies and P/R is similar. Basically, the idea is that a company’s valuation (our P) should reflect current and future earnings, which is what the price is derived from. As such, the current revenue (that’s the R) and especially current earnings (E) should not be completely divorced from it. So, Finance 101 tells us that overly-high ratios means a company is “over-valued” and over-low ratios means a company is “under-valued.” But this is too simplistic.

(Side note: Also, the general practice is definitely and for good reason to look at P/E – price to earnings, not P/R, but I think the P/E ratio is so high at this point that I think she even realized that using words like “quatrillion” in headlines sounds like some sort of joke.)

Apple and Linkedin are companies at very different stages of their growth. Linkedin is tiny and immature — they literally just started turning a profit this year. If managed correctly, it will grow much more. It made a little over 15 million last year, which is practically negligible. Apple, on the other hand, is a huge company that is basically at maturization. To compare their P/R ratios is like having a precocious 14-year-old science fair winner and a NASA scientist take a test on astrophysics and then using their scores to determine their future academic potential (without taking into consideration age or experience). It’s just silly.

Linkedin, at it’s current price, reflects a $8 billion valuation. To compare, Apple is currently valued at $300 billion. So, despite Ovides’ silly headlines, the market does realize that Linkedin is a much smaller, much riskier company. Making the argument that a $8 billion valuation still is on the higher side is understandable and probably even right, but flashing around numbers like “3 trillion” and making it sound like it’s being valued higher than Apple or the GDP of the United States is incredibly intellectually dishonest.

In short, if you were going to look at ratios, earnings is more important than revenue. But even apart from that, focusing on either the P/E and P/R is not a great idea. The revenues of Linkedin as a point of comparison just have no meaning at this point because it’s not really a good reflection of it’s potential value. Only when the company has had a little time to mature does it mean anything. Going even further and comparing Linkedin’s ratios with a very large, mature company is idiotic.

The reason I’m calling this bad journalism is because if you know anything about finance, what I just detailed out here is really not very high level and is plainly obvious to anyone with a basic finance education. They for sure should know better. The Wall Street Journal is betraying the public’s trust in publishing this bullshit. But Ovides knows that Linkedin’s IPO is the big news of the moment and the Journal wants to have the catchiest headline — so, who cares about journalistic integrity, right?

Of course, maybe I’m being too harsh. They might all just be idiots.

I graduated from Emory’s undergraduate business school in 2008. During my time there, I was actively involved in numerous student organizations including the campus newspaper, student government, APO (a service fraternity), the choral program and other groups. Despite giving my all and pouring everything I could into that school, I found at each turn Emory’s administration to be caustic and resistant to any contrary opinions. (A important exception would be the largely separate business school which has an amazing and supportive administration.)

Emory is a school with great financial resources, touting a lofty mission of dedication to “service to humanity” — that is tragically run by small-minded people, cowering in their mediocrity. They’re people who were designed for middle-management, and they’re breeding a student body that will only succeed in spite of their efforts. For all the lip-service that public service gets, in the end, Emory caters to pragmatism, nepotism and complacency. They pander to improving the rankings instead of the school itself, a short-sighted and ultimately doomed endeavor.

I walked into the offices of our school newspaper during my sophomore year one morning to discover that the school’s administration had forced the General Manager of our school newspaper to resign because of internal disagreements, and she was no longer allowed on campus. As someone who was personally close to Eileen and had been both inspired and mentored by her, I found it to be an extremely disturbing and demoralizing event. Similar, though less dramatic events, littered my various experiences at Emory. Small-scale corruption breeds large-scale disenchantment. I entered Emory as an idealist, lost it, and have struggling to regain my idealism ever since.

The problem is, everyone knows. The apathy in the student body is palpable. School spirit is non-existent. Deep down, students want college to be an idealistic and inspiring experience. Instead, they find a school that is more concerned with public image than the true pursuit of knowledge or a serious dedication to service. But kids shrug it off, and drink away their college years instead, or they resign to play the game, learning the lesson that mediocrity — supported by connections and financial resources — can get you far enough with minimal effort.

I’m not surprised in the least that Emory, once ranked #9 in its hey-day has now fallen and is struggling to stay #20. What Emory doesn’t understand is that you can only dress up a turd for so long before people start to notice its stench. If you want people to think you value knowledge and dedication to service, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO IT. Until Emory truly commits to these ideas in a substantive way, it will never be the great university it so desperately, desperately wants to be. The students who are great, who will someday be great, are searching for inspiration and encouragement of their potential. They’ll pass up Emory’s pretty facade for a school that speaks to their ideas and values in an honest way. Instead, we’ll continue to attract more and more pragmatic, small, over-privileged students who will never bring Emory the national recognition it clearly craves and needs in order to attract other potentially great students.

Crushing the spirit of your student body will not breed courageous students who will inspire others. You’ll get more self-centered children, living off trust funds and getting plush, but ultimately unimportant jobs through connections. Administrators that spend all their time fighting their students will push away and demoralize those who might have been catalyzed to achieve more.

I recall a casual lunch towards the end of my junior year with the Director of Student Activities where I brought up a hypothetical scenario of the newspaper becoming independent from the school, like many collegiate newspapers (Yale Daily News, Stanford Daily, etc.) — where I was brusquely informed that the university would not tolerate “renegade” organizations and would take legal action were we to use Emory’s name.

I’m not going to engage in an assessment of whether or not administrators were legally in the right in arresting the students. Even as a law school student, I would still tell you that the law can only take you so far. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. I learned this in second grade.

Until Emory begins to embody the ideas it parrots, Emory will never get a cent from me, and I would never allow my children to attend. Today and many days, I’m ashamed to call Emory my alma mater.

The AJC article on the arrests is here.

Sweet Valley Confidential is a hot mess of a book that is bookended by an awkward beginning and a nauseating ending. It almost becomes a not entirely terrible book, but tragically-slash-comically crashes and burns in a sugary, taffeta-and-chiffon-covered mess in the last 30 pages or so.

Between watching the show and reading the 500+ Sweet Valley books I owned, I spent a large chunk of my childhood enthralled with the World of Sweet Valley and desperately wanting to be like the smart, pretty, responsible, well-meaning, but somewhat conservative Elizabeth Wakefield. I decided in middle school that I wanted to be a journalist because Elizabeth was a journalist. Elizabeth liked tall, brown-haired boys who liked to write and so did I. She wore a single-strand, lavaliere necklace and so I did, too. My sister’s name is even Jessica!

But lets face it, Sweet Valley was always sort of, well, drivel, for lack of a better word. It’s a sappy-sweet world of silly drama surrounding the Wakefield twins, Jessica (the wild/fun twin) and Elizabeth (the good/holier-than-thou one). So, my expectations for Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later were low. Like, really, really low. Nevertheless, I pre-ordered it and, despite being overwhelmed by schoolwork, read it from cover-to-cover the day it came out.

In the very first Sweet Valley book, Sweet Valley High #1: Double Love, published in 1983, Jessica tries to steal Todd Wilkins away from Elizabeth, who has a crush on him. From there, the series continues to be peppered with Jessica’s schemes in various contexts, and as the series proceeds, Todd is described to be Elizabeth’s “steady” and is the only recurrent character in Elizabeth’s love-life to crop up in the various spin-off series.

As Confidential opens, Elizabeth is now in her late twenties and is working as a journalist, having escaped to New York after her discovery of an affair between Todd and Jessica. Jessica, former cheerleader and general silly flirt, now works for a cosmetics company; and, Todd, our basketball star-turned-alcoholic-turned-vagrant loser is now a successful sports writer. The primary thrust of the book is the upcoming family event that Elizabeth is expected to go back to Sweet Valley for, which Jessica and Todd – who are now a couple – will attend as well.

In addition being written in a weirdly stilted voice that is littered with wanna-be technospeak, this world of stereotypes and sickly-sweet people has now transformed into a cast of sad, lonely, bitter people. Steven, the twins’ older bother, cheats repeatedly on his wife, who responds by baking like a madwoman. The loveable class clown, Winston, made it rich and now is isolated and surrounded by strangers and users (he eventually drunkenly falls to his questionably accidental death). Lila cheats on Ken and is divorcing him. The class gossip is as mean and empty as ever. Sweet but homely Enid is now an arrogant doctor and kind of a jerk. Elizabeth, too, finds herself compromising her principles and values as she plots to bring a hot bartender to the occasion, trying to prey on Jessica’s tendency to stray in order to sabotage Jessica’s relationship with Todd.

Perhaps this cast touches base a little closer to reality than the original characters, but it’s clearly an overly pessimistic view. While it could be construed as some sort of social commentary that addresses the characters’ original unrealistic superficiality…that’s probably giving the book too much credit. At any rate, it is a sad and angry world, but devoid of the introspection or depth that one would hope to see accompany such a stark view. In lieu of internal reflection, a vapid petulance seems to accompany the unhappiness that pervades the new Sweet Valley.

And, by some miracle, as the book approaches and descends upon the actual event — it actually starts to have something substantial to say. Elizabeth is, for once, somewhat more human in her failings, which seems more sincere, but the book’s real source of insight (well, relative to the rest of the series) is seen between Jessica and Todd. Because of the nature of the inception of their relationship, despite their mutual good intentions, they struggle — “just two guilty people” who feel trapped by their feelings of isolation and the shame that burdens their relationship. Knowledge of their mutual infidelity colors their relationship with the rest of the community, Todd is unable to trust Jessica, and Jessica is resentful of her alienation from her sister. Eventually, Jessica leaves Todd and reunites with Elizabeth.

If the book had ended there, it would have made sense in the context of the series. It would be a darker, less-bubble-gummy, and probably needlessly depressing book, but it would be an understandable accompaniment to the superficiality of the original series. Moreover, if the book was seeking to be more modernized, instead of stupidly name-dropping “facebook” and “Google,” it would reflect more modernized views of teaching girls to rely on themselves as opposed to defining themselves by their relationships to men, which the series has historically been prone to do. Finally, Jessica choosing Elizabeth over Todd would seem to take the series in a full circle and reinforces the theme of the whole series — the adventures of two sisters who are different, but love and learn from each other.

Of course, the book continues, and while I won’t get into the details because they are dumb, it really is like the book just popped a valium, did some speed and went on some hell-bent, crazy-happy writing bender for the remaining pages. Let’s just say loves are reunited, happy couples abound, everyone ends up as friends, and in classic Jane Austen-y style, it ends in a wedding! Oh, and there’s a badly written scene where there apparently is intercourse that is “over the top!” and also “spectacular!”

The book’s shortcomings are more than overwhelming. I could get into it further, but in short: there’s plenty of bad writing, some of it is just kind of kooky, the male characters are very obviously how women see men and not rooted in reality, the book has elements that are clearly holdovers from writers who are older and not “with it” … I could go on. The point is, die-hard fans will read this regardless. (I cried when Jessica and Elizabeth made up.) However — and this is a big however — it’s not a very good book, unfortunately. For a non-fan, the book will seem bi-polar and in need of some sort of intense counseling. Finally, I’m pissed off Todd and Jessica end up together. I’m just going to put that out there. That sucks. I should also note that I’ve been very generous with this book because I loved Sweet Valley. I think most people would just describe it as “hilariously bad.” One wonders if the creator secretly despised her sweet, cotton-candy world.

The only really good line in the book is delivered by the twins’ mom who, as the family dispute erupts, orders her husband to “bring out the fucking cake.”

Everyone loves top ten lists, as evidenced by this ridiculousness, complements of the New York Times. But even while realizing the shortcomings of Top Ten Lists (necessitating comparisons of unlike things, oversimplification, lack of intellectual integrity, etc.), I just like them cause they’re fun. So, this is kind of random, but despite having no real authority or expertise in the area, I present to you my very own Top Ten list!

I don’t know why anyone would be inclined to take fashion advice from me, but here’s my list of my Top Ten “Fashion” mistakes slash decisions I wish I and other people could undo or do-over or otherwise not have done or worn. You get what I’m trying to say, right? Right. That was badly worded, but let’s just move on with the list. Things I never should have worn (and that people probably should not wear, IMHO) include:

10. Cargo pants. These never looked very good on me, but I thought I looked “street” with cargo pants on in middle school. I was wrong. In general, I’d say these can be okay in moderation and depending on the context, but you’d probably look better in something else.

9. Thick Platform sandals (this). Yuck. Mine didn’t have those skull things, but still, yuck.

8. Mini-backpacks shaped like cute animals. If you’re under the age of seven, then it’s cute. Otherwise, double-yuck.

7. Glitter Lip-smackers. I don’t know what it is about glitter that makes little girls so happy (this author has a theory), but yeah, I did this. Like, a lot. This is another thing that is probably somewhat okay in moderation.

6. Velour Pants (this). Pants made of velvet-like material. DISLIKE. Who invented these and why? I had one pair of velour pants and even then I hated them, but some of the other girls were wearing them so I tried them and hated myself for being an idiot and wearing velour pants. These are so stupid. Just wear normal pants. Or better yet, wear jeans. They’re not even that comfortable. You might as well be wearing sweatpants or yoga pants. There are so many other options that are superior just because they are not velour pants.

5. Long, lacy camis + v-neck shirt + jeans. Okay, this isn’t necessarily a terrible combination, but around senior year of high school through beginning of college, this was pretty much my go-to outfit of choice. I probably should have switched it up some.

4. Glasses leash (this). You know those string things that loop around the ends of your glasses so if they fall off they stay on your neck? Yup. I had those in 3rd grade. Super cool.

3. Overalls. Overalls are very deceptive because they are cute on models and very comfortable. When you wear them, you feel happy because you are comfy and imagine you look cute as well, but you are being cruelly deceived. In fact, you look like an idiot. The one caveat is if you are under the age of 7. Then you can wear overalls. Or if you are a model. Then it really doesn’t matter; you probably look great. Yay for you.

2. Tankinis (this, and also see this). I had one tankini back in 6th grade and luckily had the presence of mind to wear it once before realizing how atrocious tankinis are. If you look awesome in a binkini, wear that. If you look like crap in a binkini, wear a one-piece. If you are with your conservative parents, wear a one-piece. THERE IS NEVER A GOOD REASON TO WEAR A TANKINI. I’m proud and view it as a testament to my good taste that I realized this relatively early on. Tankinis are a sure-fire way to make otherwise attractive people look like crap.

1. Turtlenecks. I really, really hate turtlenecks. I have yet to find anyone who looks good wearing a turtleneck. At best, you look like you’re in a Macy’s slash J.C. Penney’s catalog — that is still not a complement. My mom just bought me two from some special store in Japan. Why, mom? WHY? I don’t have the heart to tell her that I have not worn a turtleneck since I started dressing myself almost 20 years ago. If your neck is cold, wear a scarf. That’s all I have to say on this subject.

This post originally started off just being about how much I hate tankinis because I’m currently looking for a new swimsuit since the clasp on my last one broke when I was in Mexico, but it got me thinking about the many fashion trends that I despise. There’s always more derision to go around I guess. Happy shopping!

So, today in contracts we covered mental incapacitation, and my professor told us half-jokingly that if we were all suffering from depression, we’d probably have more accurate estimates of what our grades are going to be; they’ve done surveys on this sort of thing and people are always way too optimistic. Super.

Oh, quick pause, on the topic of site updates, I finally finished putting up a temporary portfolio and added some links. Not that it matters to anyone other than me, but a nice, pretty AJAX-powered portfolio probably will not happen for at least another year, conservatively. That makes me sad. I wish I had the time. Insert wistful sigh here.

So, anyway, grades. Our first set of grades are coming tomorrow. I’m trying not to think about it. Thankfully, due to how they set up our year, this first set only represents 15% of our overall 1L grade (and around 5% of our final grade at graduation), so this first set will be minimal in terms of its overall impact. As such, I care about it more as a gauging mechanism, and less as an answer to whether or not my life will be over come tomorrow night, which is how a lot of people seem to be taking it.

This week was really shitty, but it’s almost over, and I think I’m finally not sick and that allergic reaction is more or less gone. I was stupid about it; I should have stopped taking the medicine when I first noticed something was wrong, but I’ve never been allergic to anything before so I thought maybe it was just in my head. Except it was actually extremely obvious so that made no sense. Anyway, it got a lot worse before it got better. Not cute. Bad call. People were really nice about giving me notes for classes I missed though, so that was nice.

So, for the law school musical, the main roles are for parts playing various professors, and I desperately, desperately want to play my Elements professor, who is this kick-ass, young, impressive, totally brilliant woman from Australia. (And yes, I’ve been practicing my Australian accent.) She’s feminine but definitely a feminist and she’s big into distributive justice in a law and economics context, which I love. And she wears glasses! which is just like OMG I adore you.

I’ve never really entertained the idea of going into academia, but I think it could be really amazing to be one of those people. The idea of dedicating oneself to ideas and theories has always seemed a little pretentious to me, but I feel like the professors here have an energy that’s really inspiring. Mostly, they seem happy.

Anyway, this post was sort of stream of consciousness, but whatever. I’m a little tired and a lot overwhelmed, and the real work is just beginning. But we have the Law School Auction tonight so that should be fun. It’s a twenties-styled, prohibition-era themed auction so people dress up in flapper dresses and suspenders and such. Fun stuff. Maybe I’ll go home and change, but I’m feeling a little lazy. Stay tuned for more law school shenanigans.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The stuff that’s left, though, is sort of ridiculous. I can’t believe I used to have a Fear Street and Mariah Carey website — like, what the hell? What kind of dumb kid thinks that anyone would want to visit a joint Fear Street and Mariah Carey website? Who is your target audience?? Ten-year-old-me, you are an idiot.

I feel pleased, then, that I actually had a pretty decent amount of visitors (considering the bizarre content, created by someone who only recently learned to read) until I remember that the internet was also much smaller back then. I looked up the statistics, and apparently circa late-1995 (coinciding roughly with the founding of my Frankensteinian hot mess of a site) there were approximately 18,000 sites up and running.

These archives remind me of the assortment of internet trends that have come and gone — anyone remember web rings? When people first started creating Javascript quizzes (my Barbie quiz logged over a thousand visitors a day!)? When everyone gave out site awards to one another and proudly displayed theirs on their sites? Guestbooks, anyone? Yahoo! Forums, or, prior to that, when the limits of HTML (e.g. pre-tables) meant that forum discussions were just horrible nested lists and lines of links shoved onto one page?

I’ve also been reading my old blog posts — a formidable task considering I’ve been blogging for nearly 12 years. There are things like this, which I posted about 10 years ago: “Derek (this guy at my school) was arrested on friday. I didn’t see it, but Cassie’s sister did along with the rest of her class. Apparently he ran down an 80-year old lady. No offense to the rest of the teen drivers out there, but seriously, some of you guys really suck at driving. ” WHAT KIND OF UNDER-REACTION IS THAT? And is it weird that I still basically write the same way? One would hope to see some sort of progress.

I also realize that I used to have a lot more bite. From a post at the end of freshman year of college, a mere 5-6 years ago, doling out unsolicited college advice, item #9: “If one more stupid slutty drunken bitch throws up in my hall, thereby making it smell like crap for a week, I will rip out her hair until her scalp bleeds alcohol. This is not so much advice as it is a DIRE WARNING.” Well, shit. What happened to that girl? I think I’ve gone soft.

Anyway, my conclusion after my foray into nostalgia is that I was a pretty dumb kid, but I had a lot more attitude.

And I miss the days when the internet felt small and containable and various companies would start directory projects to “index” the internet — seems like a crazy concept now. Also, this should have been said earlier, but congrats to Jane re: Penn Law. You’ll be awesome. (Hey, remember Jane the Poet?)

When I began typing this, I started off planning on writing a post about my qualms with getting information from newspapers reporting on scientific discoveries, but then got off on a tangent about why I want a puppy and when this might happen, etcetera…but I’ve removed that section now and we’re back in business (that was pointless, I know).

So anyhow, my point was that when things are reported, issues are oversimplified and that important nuances are removed to an extent that is counterproductive to people trying to make crucial decisions about their health or lives or whatnot (e.g. one article says that something is always great, another say that the same something can kill you, but in actuality whether one or the other result will obtain is dependent on whether the party in question meets specific criteria).

Sometimes, there’s enough specificity to be useful, but a lot of the time the arguments are completely one-sided or it seems like the reporter just settles for a “hey, this happens and but sometimes it doesn’t happen” without enough detail for anyone to understand why one situation would occur versus another.

The problem is, the information gets condensed and not expanded from there and most people would not bother to delve into the topic further before forming conclusions. Almost no one would be able to find the source material, and instead other sources will cite, summarize and further overgeneralize the already over-broad information. Eventually, word gets around in some snarky, 140-character form.

Anyway, I wanted to launch into some discussion about media and how it’s changing to suit consumers, and the various issues with journalism as it is currently moving to be more accessible. The problem, of course, is that I think it has been and is already sacrificing a disproportionate level of integrity for the sake of “user-friendliness,” and that no form of media other than books seem to have found a way to inform that manages to be sufficiently accurate.

I was also going to talk about how people who look to movies and television instead of reading to glean insight on the human condition or philosophy or politics are being sadly mis-educated. I love movies and television, but I go to them for entertainment and inspiration, not information. If you want to learn, you gotta read.

Blah, blah, blah — ergo I heart books and people should read more. The end. I was going to write something more cogent, but it’s such a preachy thing (I know) and anyone who would bother to read it (out of my readership of like 3 people) would probably not be the people I would ideally like to direct the message at anyway, oh, sweet irony…my point is, I really do think people should read more.

Mostly, it was heartwarming to see everyone doing well and happy with their lives and choices in careers (or at least putting on a convincing show). It’s weird to think of us all back in high school playing Tetrinet in class, doing problem sets, coming up with skits, doing artsy projects, talking about prom dates and all sorts of silly things. Now, a significant portion of our little IB class is married and some have kids. And, of the thirteen that got together over break, three were in law school, three were in medical school (or soon to be), and three had masters degrees. Others had very serious-sounding jobs, haha.

It’s comforting to see that through the stress, moving, debating over jobs, majors, colleges, and a bunch of other dilemmas, everyone seems to have gotten through it all and come out on top and are able to be supportive of each other and happy for each others’ various accomplishments.

So, yeah, break was nice. Happy holidays!

Anyway, Winter Break. I’m going to Cabo with the familia, I’m applying for jobs and then I need to outline for my classes (exciting! I know). I’m finally going to be home for more than 24 hours — weird. It’s been a while. But I’ll be back in Chicago in time to ring in the New Year with my lovely fellow 1Ls.

She’s been on my mind due, indirectly, to the new biography by Stacy Schiff that was released earlier this month. I haven’t read the book, and I doubt I will since the reviews are somewhat lukewarm, but Schiff makes an interesting point: that the fact that her ingenuity and power has largely been chalked up to physical attractiveness instead of her actual traits sends a pretty clear message about the perception of women:

(As quoted by Maureen Dowd) “It has always been preferable to attribute a woman’s success to her beauty rather than to her brains, to reduce her to the sum of her sex life,” Schiff writes, adding: “Cleopatra unsettles more as sage than as seductress; it is less threatening to believe her fatally attractive than fatally intelligent.”

Anyway, I thought this was an interesting point, exemplified by the occurrence of jokes after someone mentions a particularly successful woman or a relationship where the guy is more attractive than the girl — you would generally expect to hear something along the lines of “who did she sleep with to get there” and “she must be great in bed”, respectively, or some variant thereof.

I do think the situation is getting better, but (as inspired by parallel arguments from Dixon’s discussion on Critical Race Studies) I think it’s important to realize that the problem does persist very forcefully and to realize that many people (especially those who congregate to male-dominated industries or sub-groups) don’t think it does. So, yeah.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The main thing that made me reluctant to get another phone was that I really like how seamlessly my contacts and gmail work with my current phone, the G1, and I don’t know how well a non-google phone would do the same. I also like that it has a full physical keyboard, as I have no patience for on-screen keyboards, and a lot of the other Android phones on the market don’t have them.

One option was just to get another G1 to replace my broken one, but it seemed wasteful, and the one thing I don’t like about it is that it doesn’t have the storage capacity to handle the latest versions of Android. Luckily, the G2 I’m sure will work equally seamlessly, has a full physical keyboard and I’m guessing it’ll be upgraded to handle the next few versions of Android. I’m excited! I hope they push this thing out before the end of the year; I don’t want to wait that long for a new phone.

Oh, also, I moved to Chicago. It’s great, but more on that later.

Other stuff I have recently come across and liked:

Crepes du Nord This place is the best lunch place ever if you work in the financial district. Shockingly, they serve crepes.

Del Posto Don took us here to celebrate a deal closing and it was amazing. It’s Mario Batali (he does great pasta), we had a five-course meal plus a lot of wine and cocktails. I went with my sister to Babo a while back, which is also Batali, but I thought this place was better. They had this cucumber-flavored gin drink slash concoction that I cannot even describe, but I miss it dearly. You know it’s a nice place when they give you complementary boxes of truffles when you leave. Well, that and the 4-figure bill. Anyway, I was impressed.

Dropbox I’ve been using this for a while now, but I finally upgraded to the paid version because it’s so useful. Simply stated, it’s cloud computing, which basically means that your files are saved on a server somewhere, so it’s accessible anywhere. I tried a number of these types of solutions, but Dropbox was by far the best. It basically syncs all the documents in one folder on each of the computers you link to your account, and it stores the files online in their server as well, so all your stuff is accessible through any web browser as well. It’s great because it’s simple, and it does performs a few functions incredibly seamlessly and correctly. If you have multiple computers you work from, or you just like having access to the contents of your hard drive from anywhere (they have an Android app, so I can get to basically all of my files using my cell phone, too), it’s an incredibly useful application.

Crazy Heart I didn’t think I would like this movie, but I did. It’s nothing fancy, but I liked it.

Justin Bieber I love him. Nah, I’m just kidding, he sucks. Sorry to those with Bieber Fever.

Traveling tends to wear me out and to leave my life in a state of general disarray, so I have been trying to go out less and to take care of some apartment stuff (cleaning, etc.) and administrative life stuff. So, yeah, I’ve been pretty anti-social lately and will probably stay that way for a little while. I just need to recharge.

Christina’s last day was on Friday, and I am utterly and totally heartbroken. For a while there when we were in the same office and pulling crazy hours, we were spending literally 50-60 hours a week together. I’m so used to consulting her on every minor decision and to confiding in her about … just everything … I feel like my life is going to suck a little (read: a lot) until I get used to it. I’m going to have to find things to occupy my time during the workday, though I’m not sure what. So yeah, it’s going to be pretty quiet at work unfortunately. And Ron’s gone this week. Sigh. Bleh.

Otherwise, things are pretty calm. No pressing life decisions looming up ahead, and I’m drama-free … for the time being, anyway. I’m looking into moving costs and housing options and thinking about whether I should try out for the Chicago Law School Winter Musical or for Scales of Justice, which is their law school a capella group. It’s dorky, I know, but I miss singing, and I REALLY miss performing and being on a stage.

Oh, on a side note, I found the funniest birthday card when I was looking for a card for Christina’s Going-Away. It’s a picture of a birthday candle and it says: If someone tried to ruin your birthday, I’d ruin their life. Happy birthday.

Well, I thought it was funny, anyway. Alright, I’m off to bed. Tschuss.

Figuring out my next step has been exhausting, thrilling, stressful, uncertain and, well, all other sorts of adjectives, but I feel good about this, though a bit apprehensive about how hard it’ll be and how cold Chicago will be. I was at more or less a complete impasse until I had the aha! realization that a lot of my indecision had been stemming from my reluctance to give up my life in New York and uproot myself. But I could always move back if I really end up feeling that strongly about it and, really, it’s nine months out of the year — now I’m just excited to choose housing, buy a UChicago hoodie and to find out what my 1L classes will be! (I know, the peppiness is nauseating, but cut me some slack. Life decisions are hard.)

I definitely realized that I’m glad I took time off, even if I did end up arriving at the conclusion that I’d anticipated two years ago. I know that I’m in a much better mindset to be able to succeed in law school — more focused, etc. I had time to figure out some stuff about, you know, life. I met a lot of wonderful people. I definitely have a clear idea about what I want and can expect out of a legal career, and I also have a better idea of what to or not to prioritize in law school and later on.

So, yeah, big week for me.

Getting out of career-planning-mode, I also had an IB Hot-Pot Party at my apartment when DK was in town, followed not long thereafter by IB Hot-Pot Party Part Deux to finish up the remaining food due to certain … miscalculations … of ideal meat to people ratios. (Ahem, Amy.)

We also had a farewell party for one of my co-workers at Havana Outpost, which has great margaritas. Yum. It was a lot of fun, but I wish I remembered more of it. I’m told I enjoyed myself, so that’s good, I suppose.

One of my favorite things about being in New York City in a job with fairly little responsibility is that there’s always people coming and going and it’s easy to make time for them and to take weekend trips, too. So, the itinerary for the next month or so –

Next weekend, Daniel, who I haven’t seen in over three years now, is dropping by for a visit. The weekend after, (the fantastically talented) Brooke will be here. The week after, I’m going to Seattle for a cousins’ reunion, minus Caroline, who’s off to China. And the week after that it’s off to Florida to hang out with the Emory/Just Loop It gang at Dan the Man’s place in Sarasota. And then, the following weekend, FINALLY, my sister is coming to visit! Which has been a long time coming — so, it’s shaping up like the next month and a half will pass by pretty quickly.

On a less upbeat note, but still pertaining to the topic of comings and goings, now that our two-year stints are up at the law firm, the old guard will be moving out to be replaced by newer, more bright-eyed and bushy-tailed legal assistants. Today was Peter’s last day which was great for him and sad for us, and it looks like at some point in May, Christina will be leaving the firm, which I know is going to colossally suck for me.

Also, I really need to figure out what I’m going to do about law school. I’m a little (read: very) heartbroken to leave New York, but it just seems way to expensive to stay. Even apart from tuition bills, the cost of living is really hard to justify if I have no income. Honestly, moving was not an easy process for me, not unlike how moving to Atlanta was for college. I feel like I finally created some sort of life here and now it’s time to go. At first I was considering just moving home for the sake of getting out of my job, but due to cost considerations, it makes more sense to just stay, work and only move once when it’s time for school — wherever that may be.  I found that I was actually a relieved to be sticking around a little while longer.

While there are a LOT of ways to get from New York to D.C., there are only a few ways to get from Charlottesville to D.C. Namely, Greyhound, Amtrack (sold out) and by Air (very expensive). I ended up taking a Greyhound at 2:15 AM to arrive at Richmond at 4:30 AM. Then, I went from Richmond at 5:30 AM to arrive at Charlottesville at 6:50 AM. I finally, finally got to Sleep Inn at 7:30, unpacked, took at shower and called a cab to get to UVA at 8:45 — just 15 minutes before registration ended and with no sleep. I looked pretty rough that morning, haha.

Anyway, the rest of the trip proceeded much more smoothly, I really liked the current students I met, and I was really excited about the IP Law Curricular Session thing I attended, which reminded me of why I wanted to study law in the first place. The professor discussed why or why not and based on what grounds comedians would or could have a cause of action against other people who stole their jokes, haha.

As for UVA as a whole, while I am undoubtably glad I went to visit, the trip really wasn’t determinative. My main reservations are job prospects, location and diversity when it comes to UVA and honestly, I still have those fears.

So that’s where I am. Law school applications are behind me, and law school deposit deadlines loom ahead. I’ll see in the coming weeks how the situation develops.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: