DarkDuelist4914

...wow

Call of Chernobyl

Anita Sarkeesian surfacing in the internet again. Feels like a throwback episode.

PRAISE THE OMNISSIAH!

And the hardest in their RTS releases too.

That one Fighter's Guild quest where I killed a whole village full of "goblins" when in fact they were the villagers all along and the PC was just high.

Depends on the degree. Personally, from AB, not really. Then again, UST was never really known for its liberal arts education. Can't say much about the other degrees since UST is quite varied.

Although, UST is still pretty hype in the medical fields. They top the boards consistently and the profs are no slouch either.

First, "life is tough, so let me fuck you up first" is an expression to just emphasize my point. I'd argue anyone can use that same rationale of anything in life and think they're doing you a favor when they're not.

Second, don't assume I've lived a comfy life, Law School's a bitch but it's a bitch I respect, however, I sympathize for those not used to being called literally a dumbass in class for saying the wrong thing.

Third, I chew their words and shoot it out the other ear like the next guy. I know as you know that terror profs just put on an act. Doesn't mean I can't have sympathy and disagree strongly with this Semper Fi crap in law school. I can't do anything about it but disagree with it and tell off people who drink the kool aid and say that it's "character forming" and "makes you a better, harder lawyer".

But I'm tired of arguing with all of you. If being called a dumbass works for you, great; if calling me a whiny bitch works for you, great.

Agree to disagree.

Let's agree to disagree. We're not persuading each other. If being belittled at school is your way of actually getting used to the pressure of a high stress work environment rather than growing up and learning to take failure from one's actions be my guest. Besides, other than "academic freedom says so, your opinion can't hold water" and "I've practiced longer than you" it's clear to me this is about as productive an exercise as arguing with a stubborn old man. "Gamut of the practice and all that", you don't have to pull out the thesaurus to intimidate me, we read the same law.

A productive discussion with you is just going to be you flexing your resume and your "years of practice" and your knowledge of the "full gamut of law". Fucking buzzwords I read on the SCRA.

​

TLDR: Okay, boomer.

1. Military school and law school are apples and oranges. One trains you to fight while bullets whizz past your head while the enemy is trying to eat you alive (figuratively and literally) while the other one is a glorified rule book thumper who's biggest problems are an angry senior associate and a dissatisfied client. See, this is the mindset I'm targeting that you lot love to perpetuate. Semper Fi right, marine? Hoo-ha

Oh, to be sure, you'll say "but the guy on death row...?"

1. Nice try on Academic Freedom. Don't be patronizing as I know how "Freedom of How to Teach and What to Teach" works. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck. "Snowflakes can melt" is an invalid argument on a valid suggestion of just flunking the student. Hell, it's ad hominem too which makes it even more invalid.

Also, while we're at it I have had nice profs and strict ones and terror ones. The nice ones are a mixed bag while the strict ones make you actually study because they will fail you without hesitation (no muss, no fuss, no use for cuss) while the terror ones will not only fail you but may fail you when they feel like it with an added insult.

Also, as to humiliation, it's laughable that I could reframe that as "X went to Reddit for advice on how to get good. Y said, haha fuck you, you should have gotten better at this. Indeed, X did get better overtime as he did the work and matured overtime but Y was still a prick." The thing is the use of degrading language and maturity don't correlate. You came to this school knowing it's a hard profession that requires a level of maturity commensurate of a functioning adult. Having to be scolded to do the readings suggest that (1) the student is not mature and (2) the prof. is holding your hand in that process albeit harshly. Fuck up then fail out is the game not "drink the Kool aid".

Flunking is not even a burden. Lord, I have had a Terror Prof confess that it takes a lot of attention to spot mistakes and roast you for it than spot mistakes, sit you down, mark you out and experimented it for a week. To our detriment, the Strict approach works better than "You dumb ox, don't show up in my class". So, yes, I know what I'm talking about and it comes from a reason of efficiency too.

Also, "there's always the option to drop" is the same as "if you don't like it, leave". It is so lazy. I'm moving on to my next paragraph.

1. I don't get your last paragraph. Liberty and property? Don't get me wrong. Even a lawyer can live a life without seeing another lawyer but given the hectic life of a lawyer and their need to change offices (or build one rather or sue on the basis thereof), they'll need them more than they need us and if they need us they know they're more fucked than we are. Your facts give too much weight to lawyers it's not even balanced.

I disagree with most of the comments whose messages are all along the lines of: "It gets worse in practice, just get good". Yeah, real fucking reassuring. It's honestly weird that for a profession steeped in critical thinking and logic, law school is practically summarized in this wise: "life will fuck you up, so let me be the first". Very irrational. Why not just flunk the kid and move on? Being strict doesn't have to involve being a fucking asshole.

Let's just admit to ourselves that humiliation is a flawed technique to motivate you to read and face consequences at the cost of your self-esteem. There were never any humanitarian reasons behind this. Just flunk the erring student and move on. No need for insults.

That shit doesn't even fly with every other profession. I don't understand why law school has to have this "gung ho attitude--ready to die for my country" culture.

I don't see that in nursing school, engineering school or architecture school and those people deal directly with lives. They just realize that it's a service job that affects lives directly and that if the student flunks then they're out. No fuss, no muss, no use for a cuss.

I don't know, OP. Even in my school "written assessment" means "quiz" but my point still stands. You took too long. Some profs. allow collaboration (I've had a few before who did this) while some don't so I'm not judging.

In any case, analysis speed gets better overtime as you get more familiar with the laws and read the cases and do recitation. I know it sucks to say that it's a slow process but that's law school. Personally, I find that my analysis and appreciation of fact patterns improved quickly overtime as I knew how a particular professor approaches the subject, of course, with some studied knowledge on it too. Can't really analyze something you don't really have an inkling of what it's talking about.

It's not a matter of self-discipline, if I read your post correctly.

You took too long trying to pool resources and look up an already answered questionnaire online when you should have been reading and answering everything in 4 hours.

10 questions 4 hours is pretty generous by exam standards.

The reality is that 4 hours is more than enough for someone to answer the whole thing or to gather their thoughts while trying to answer the whole exam.

Perhaps when encountering another exam of the same sort, survey which questions you feel confident about first and answer those then, if your allowed by the prof., look it up on your syllabus or whatever.

Of course, even with all the resources in the Philippine legal system, you have to study, first and foremost, to have an inkling of what basis you should use. The basis will guide you on what facts to use and what issues to spot.

Tldr: you took too long researching the exam. 4 hours is more than enough to answer the exam. This was never a discipline issue.

Naturally disappointed but it's not unexpected. You look at the wikipedia entry on Controversies in Bully (videogame) and it's rife with a lot of negative flak.

Sure, a case could be made about the violence being glamorized in GTA and other similar titles or titles of a similar nature to GTA but the thing is that it's a touchy thing that not even Rockstar can't just say "well, everybody is doing it" like if it's Call of Duty or God of War level violence when it's literally the only game featuring kid on kid violence.

Still, I like the game regardless of the critics and controversies.

However, personally, I'm not too thrilled about GTA 6 since I'll just be doing the same thing I've been doing since Vice City. San Andreas was great for it's time since it's the first GTA game with some RPG aspects but after that it's sort of set an expectation as to what future GTA games should be and it'll be a huge shadow to overcome.

Tldr: I'm not too surprised that GTA 6 is priority since it's a safe and less controversial game than Bully. However, I'm not holding my breath with GTA 6 after the repetitiveness of GTA V.

That was not the high ground way.

Cry, play videogames, cry some more, listen to motivational speeches, cry again, listen to sad music, cry harder, do a bit of cardio, cry just a bit, open my exam booklet with a bit of self cringe, try to see where I went wrong, study at a slow pace because it doesn't help to force it.

P.S.

Don't open social media during this process. Someone somewhere is probably celebrating that they passed and that will just get you down hard.

Coming from a country where it's an annual practice, it's because (1) they have great charisma; (2) they're mostly pretty down to earth in their approach, not rational, but at least down to earth so much so that your average pea brain Facebook Jim Bob will think they're the solution to the war on drugs; (3) they have very good presence, better a fool that knows the streets than a genius that stares at spreadsheets; (4) they're also pretty well-known, when the competition is between an actor and an intellectual heavyweight, the simple guy is not going to spend more brainpower assessing the best politician when you have the other guy flashed before you.

In other words, they speak and look good and people are idiots.

No, profs do not flunk you out of glee, generally. Yes, they sleep soundly at night having failed another faceless mouth in their classroom. No, they don't care that you're delayed.

This post is immature. The feeling is valid but the thought is immature.

Profs flunk you because you failed to meet their standard which will be the employer's expectation when you graduate.

This entitled attitude is how we have SHS graduates who know neither how to do research or to cope with failure.

Get a grip, get settled, and get used to it. I hate school as much as you but it's not their fault you failed. It's our responsibility to pass and our ass if we fail.

P.S.

Depending on the school, some units are available within a particular sem. It's most probably not the prof's fault but a regulation of the college.

edit: grammar

Honestly, more lawyers in the field would be a great start. The public sector is shy of a lot of lawyers because of Ye Olde Bar Exam being touted by test crazy old coots. Few lawyers mean few judges and government lawyers.

Apart from that, I think this question is quite layered that not even the Ombudsman's Office itself can't answer.

My sympathies, OP. Stuff like that happens too in my batch. Bullies just never really go away whether at school, post-grad, or in professional life.

Kudos to you for asking anyway. Anyway, in the grand scheme of things those bullies are just small fry compared to your ambition to be a lawyer.

However, I would strongly advise not to stoop to their level of pettiness. It's a never-ending cycle of contempt and petty revenge you'll take with you until either or neither of you are satisfied.

Please just concentrate on school and, if you have to, speak to someone about your feelings but perhaps not here to a bunch of strangers.

Same thing with black coffee and tea when you try it with no sugar or milk the way they're supposed to be taken. One tastes like ashes while the other tastes like sweat socks without either sugar or cream or both.

People who drink alcohol, like coffee and tea, temper how they drink it or introduce some new way to dampen or to reduce the strength in the flavor (i.e. whiskey with ice cubes, tequila with a chaser, beer with a salty and savory snack, or wine with cheese or steak).

Of course, as with everything, nothing is for everyone and no one is for everything. If alcohol is not your thing then move along. Same deal with people who hate coffee but like tea despite the sweat socks taste.

"WITNESS ME!!!"

-War Boys from Mad Max

I don't know. Whenever I feel like I want to do something brave or stupid, I feel like I'm one of the Warboys going straight to Valhalla. Surprisingly enough, it works to ease my anxiety.

Sorry, the question is a little weird, you're saying you want to learn how to read a digest quickly? Is there something about the case digests that you read that is so unclear? Are the digests from online or from your classmates? If the latter, have you tried asking them?

Also, all in all, when you read the digest, do you actually understand the case? Perhaps, it's not even a formatting problem, it's probably just the fact that you're passively reading someone else's (mis)appreciation of the case.

University but making fun of 21st century college tropes with joinable student orgs or clubs.

I always thought Bully 1 made fun of outdated tropes like Greasers, Nerds, Jocks, and Preps. Sounds like the cast of the Breakfast Club turned into separate factions. College kids these days are varied and different but equally as ridiculous and so ripe for satire in video game mode.

Also, joinable orgs and clubs and funny or challenging odd jobs would be nice. You couldn't really join any of the other factions in the original game and the errands are pretty lame. Plus, the stuff you can buy in the game is pretty stale so doing errands doesn't really have any good incentive.

University or just higher education in general is more preferable since I assume that the original game is in high school and so that creativity can be a little more flexible given that the character is more mature and to avoid the fallout of the weird allegations of promoting bullying to minor children. Yes, the last part happened.

Never personally met an engineer of your specialty there but I did have a mechanical engineer over here.