Baseless Intradisciplinary Transitionary Competitive Hyperactivity

Law school is rough. It is rougher on some people more so than others. Some people are able to effectively hide that stress, others, not so much. People in a law school environment quickly realize those that can handle the stress, and those that cannot. I have been one such observer.

I have seen people break down and cry in the library. I have seen people freeze up for 90 minutes in a 3-hour Torts final. I have seen people finish a final and drink their sorrows away in a 3-day bender. I have even seen me do it. It has been my experience that law school can bring out the very worst in people, and it rarely brings out the best. It is a debilitating process that serves more to whittle one down to a finely-tuned instrument than to promote one’s inherent skills or natural ability. Law school is not so much a “cream rising to the top” situation, but more of a “last man standing” free-for-all.

This educational process creates a disorder that affects many of its participants. Every observer of law students recognizes it in some form, but has trouble putting their finger on the most accurate diagnosis. I have recognized it for years, but I always had trouble putting a name on it myself. That time has come to an end. Never fear, ladies and gentleman, the time for uncertainty and speculation is over. This affliction now has a name:

Baseless Intradisciplinary Transitionary Competitive Hyperactivity

(Also known as the B.I.T.C.H.)

Anatomy: Law school demands a lot of its people. It rarely hands out moments of success or satisfaction. The lack of recognition can wear on an individual, and some will become affected by the B.I.T.C.H.. People exhibiting B.I.T.C.H. symptoms seek to internalize issues created in law school and then attempt to outsource their self-affirmation to confirm their own self-worth.

Causes: B.I.T.C.H. is essentially caused by a lack of personal attention. Persons most likely affected are women, but the disorder manifests in both sexes. A B.I.T.C.H. begins with an individual’s low feelings of self-worth and a general need for affirmation. The individual is then placed in a transitionary environment where standards are unfamiliar and expectations are unknown (such as law school). After a less-than-smooth transition, the individual finds themselves in an academically homogenous, intradisciplinary, and highly competitive environment populated by people with similar skills and ambitions. Because of indeterminable expectations and a lack of frequent benchmarks by which to assess themselves, individuals find other ways to justify their own self-worth. However, B.I.T.C.H. sufferers, because of their need to externalize their self-worth, find tangential and irrelevant standards by which to justify their value. These baseless standards have nothing to do with success in their chosen field of study, but serve only to affirm one’s own self worth. Failure to achieve in these tangential standards can deepen the affects of the B.I.T.C.H., and it may become a chronic condition.

Symptoms: The most common symptom of the B.I.T.C.H. is a fierce dominance and/or competition over a seemingly-irrelevant aspect of one’s professional life. Examples of these symptoms can include, but are not limited to, competition over love interests, deriding one’s apparel, and/or a general attempt to garner attention. Observed symptoms have manifested in as many as 7 females fighting over the same fertile male. That occasion’s quantity was tempered by another occasion’s quality when one B.I.T.C.H. open-hand slapped another B.I.T.C.H. While these instances do provide moments of hilarity for non-effected parties, the common theme is that individuals will avoid a B.I.T.C.H. when possible. Other symptoms of the B.I.T.C.H. include tearing down another to make themselves seem better, talking incessantly about one’s own accomplishments even when they are relatively miniscule or irrelevant, and a general lack of congeniality or tact when the conversation shifts to anyone but themselves.

Prognosis: Left untreated, a B.I.T.C.H. will have increasingly-severe symptoms. The worst cases result in a chronic B.I.T.C.H. The disorder will alienate friends, discourage new relationships, and severely hinder one’s love life and procreative pursuits. The latter results originate from a general societal stigma that the disorder is hereditary, which has yet to be disproven. Because of the disorder’s origins in external stimuli, changing conditions can improve or worsen the B.I.T.C.H. symptoms. In all likelihood, the worsening economy will decrease affirming stimuli and increase the need for external affirmation, increase the number of B.I.T.C.H. cases. In a very real sense, the job market can be a real B.I.T.C.H.

Treatment: Treatment of the B.I.T.C.H. is a precarious process. If the affected individual is confronted with the condition insincerely or light-heartedly, the notifying individual may bear the full brunt of the B.I.T.C.H. Clinical studies prove that the unprepared treating professional, after being exposed to a directed barrage of B.I.T.C.H., can be left hysterical and paranoid. Some have even expressed agoraphobia and suicidal tendencies. Likewise, avoiding the issue entirely may perpetuate the chronic nature of the B.I.T.C.H. Proper treatment involves a coordinated highlighting of B.I.T.C.H. symptoms. Place emphasis on the affected individual’s recognition of the symptoms. Asking, “Don’t you think you’re being a B.I.T.C.H.?” places a necessary recognition in the mind of the infected individual. Only through persistent recognition and constant derision can symptoms of the B.I.T.C.H. be mitigated. While still experimental, some treating professionals have noticed some success with a treatment for severe cases. While still awaiting FDA approval, this experimental treatment utilizes extending one’s dominant hand across their body, opening that hand completely, and bringing it across the face of a particularly irrational B.I.T.C.H. in a back-handed fashion. Shortly following this “B.I.T.C.H. Slap,” the treating professional makes a stern, affirmative statement such as “You are being a B.I.T.C.H.” This treatment has the effect of bringing high-level B.I.T.C.H.’s down to a lower frequency level in order to pursue more traditional treatment methods. Again, it cannot be emphasized enough: This treatment is highly experimental, and as it has not passed FDA approval (still in Phase III Human Testing). Use of this treatment method should be followed strictly-by-the-book, as any deviation may expose one to civil and criminal liability. If used, the patient will likely have strong feelings of hatred towards you for a period of time. This is not your fault as a treating professional, this is simply a side effect of the treatment and its interaction with the underlying irrationality of the B.I.T.C.H. disease. Over time, as symptoms decrease, the patient will thank you and come to love you for your bravery in taking such bold action in treating their disease.

Outlook: The outlook for people suffering from the B.I.T.C.H. is not hopeful. Affected individuals will tend to lead solitary, lonely, and unfulfilling lives. However, it does not have to be that way. Early detection and proper treatment can result in an almost complete recovery. Statistical studies have shown that the B.I.T.C.H. can flare up at later dates, leading to suggest that the disorder is viral in nature and cannot ever be completely purged from the patient. Again, early detection and proper treatment can keep these flare ups to a bear minimum. Ultimately, despite the fact that B.I.T.C.H.’s be crazy, there is no reason they cannot overcome the disorder and end up leading successful and fulfilling lives.

Retraction...for lack of a better word

It has come to my attention that a recent post parodying the now-infamous "Snooki-punch" fiasco may have been offensive to some or, to others, appearing to condone violence against women. I can see how this post, taken out of context, and equating the Nintendo classic "Punch-Out," could have offended some. Let me be clear: P.A.C. BLOG HAS NOT, AND NEVER WILL CONDONE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN (other than those on The Jersey Shore, who typically start it anyway). Certain interested parties have made clear their disapproval of some of my content. I have also discovered that I have quite the secret following among professors and administrators. Whether it be the desire to cover one's ass (C.Y.A) or a genuine interest in my contributions, I cannot blame a single one of them. It is because of my respect for them that I am posting this. If not to justify, at least to enlighten. While it is sometimes my point to offend, I never hope to abuse.

This issue has bothered me, slightly. You see, in spite it all, I think of myself as a uniter. I picture myself on a hill embracing people from all backgrounds and criminal histories. Surprising, I know. In my many years, I have learned many hard lessons, and most of those from my many failures. One thing I have learned is this: often the best way to unite people is to find a common enemy. I'd like to think that I can unite others around the characters I describe in this blog, but I am aware that sometimes, that mob-taunting asshole is yours truly.

That's why I make a point of not using anyone's names in this blog. I have no desire to subject people to public scorn that have not initiated publicity upon themselves. Regardless, the characters I mention in this blog are far from unique to any one law school, to any area of the country, or to any point in time. Part of the charm and popularity of this blog is that these people are not atypical, but common fixtures in all walks of life, even outside law school.

These people generally suck and grate on my nerves. Which is why I ridicule them: to bring the rest of us together. And to vent, but mainly to bring people together.

But my blog is not just where people can find common ground through mutual hatred. No, not at all. In addition to the obvious camaraderie that my blog nurtures, I have also hoped it to serve a discretionary and precautionary function. As I have said, the people I have described are not rare, and I have readers comment on individuals they believe my posts refer to, when my intended target was someone substantially different. These "characters," as I have called them, exist regardless of my opportunity or desire to belittle them. They possess qualities that make these people stand out from the crowd.

These qualities then coerce the crowd into wishing they would be hit by a bus.

Therefore, if one of my posts hits too close to home, perhaps you should ask yourself: "Why?" Next, you should ask yourself, "Is he talking about me?" Then, "Perhaps I do have that annoying/abrasive/anxious/suicidal personality trait The Godfather describes. How can I fix it?" And finally, Step 4: "Would it be better if I just stayed home, never left my house, and through my absence, make the world a better place?"

So here's to you, future agoraphobic! Everyone can make a room better: some by entering, others by leaving.

Hey Economy, Fuck You.

It was a class like most other upper-level classes. The professor, who is an adjunct professor, spent the majority of his time bitching about what actually happens in practice and not about the actual subject matter of the class. Now most of you that are in law school upper-lever classes know all about this (unless you're in some pretentious Ivy League school where your professors never practiced a day in their lives), and you'll also typically know that your adjunct professors have much more actual knowledge to convey than any information contained in your core classes. The wisdom provided in this particular lecture was somewhat humbling. "Ladies and gentlemen," he said to start the class, "welcome to the worst hiring market in my 25 years."

That was 12 months ago.

Needless to say any recent graduate knows how much it sucks to be looking for a job right now. I don't care if you have a law degree, an engineering degree, or if you failed out of the M.R.S. program, shit sucks. What makes it even worse, is that we don't even know how bad shit is. You see, recent graduates seeking gainful employment are not calculated in typical unemployment statistics. However, unemployment for 16-24-year-olds is 52.2%. Again, that doesn't count recent graduates.

I, like so many others, have aggressively sought employment. I even went to Career Services, for what that's worth. It took the guy an hour to basically tell me to open the Yellow Pages, start with "A" and work from there, but to make sure I had a glass of water for all the envelopes I'd be licking, and asses I'd be kissing. Within the past year I have sent out at least 50 resumes to all firms, big and small, throughout my city. In addition to those resumes, I also called numerous law firms asking if they were hiring. Not only did none of them even hint at an open position, one receptionist even laughed at the concept. For all she knew, I could've been a fifth-year associate, but that didn't stop her from cackling and promptly hanging up. I even sent a few resumes to a distant tropical paradise to see if they needed legal help. Apparently not. At least I got a couple interviews, right? One place I interviewed with even had the balls to call me up, convince me to show for a 9 AM interview, and then tell me, after 15 minutes, that they weren't actually hiring, but were new to the region and just wanted to get their names out there. That's the career equivalent of going on a date, ordering food, then promptly hearing about your date's herpes problem. Nothing is going to come of it, but you've already gotten all pretty and now you're still stuck there for the duration.

What makes this problem even worse, is that several big firms in this area have retained their 1L On-Campus-Interview schedules. Yes, 1L OCI is not that common, but here it is. In fact, here, it is very big. That's why the big firms have chosen to keep their appointments. You see, if they didn't show up, it would look bad. It doesn't matter that they will be taking record low numbers of summer associates, and the interview schedules are going to end up being a formality for basically everyone. However, this will inevitably have the effect of inflating the average 1L's already-gargantuan ego. Like an Ole' Miss fan when they are ranked in the top 10, these people become insufferable. Not only is this a cruel tease, but we, the upperclassmen, are left to clean up the inevitable emotional fallout. This would be okay if these were college coeds who had just been rejected from their favorite sorority, but we're dealing with law students here, and there's no hiding the fact that these are not the most attractive people of the world...

But it hasn't stopped there, even those in the graduating class are still unemployed. In fact, several of them have had to resort to opening their own temporary law firms just to make ends meet until the crushing blow of Sally Mae's interest rates come rattling down in about four month's time. The legal market has dried up so significantly that several have resorted to the old jobs they had after college, thus making their $100k+ JD's about as useful as a Shakira concert at a school for the Not Deaf, But Blind. This means that, not only do we law students have to compete against others in our class for the bread crumbs that are still out there, but we have to do this against people that should've gotten a job last year, but now have a year of fear and rock-bottom standards to match.

Nope, the reality is finally setting in. The only jobs are with the government. Literally. The only employer that has even attempted to register for upper-class OCI is the United States taxpayer. Listen, as much as it might sound like it, I am not above doing menial tasks. As much as I act better than the rest of you, when it comes to a paycheck, I'll dig ditches, build walls, serve fast food, hell, I'll even put my JD to good work by helping some criminals launder some money. My other interview was even with a nice fella named Bernie. But then the government decided to throw Mr. Madoff in jail, so I guess that's a wash. Alright, Uncle Sam, I get the hint. If you're the only bastard hiring, I guess I can help the IRS on some of those collections irregularities.

Fuck this economy. I wish I could afford beer.

The Definitive Female Age Break-Down

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

1L's: Pull your head out of your collective ass

Every year, it seems some 1L does something indescribably stupid. While other discontented law students and I have discussed this on several occasions, we've yet to be able to discover why some people feel the need to enter new environments, and based on no information whatsoever, demand to be treated with any modicum of respect.

Like most graduate programs, law school is professional school. While in undergrad, most of us studied a range of topics, and most of those were in the arbitrary and theoretical areas. Our real experience came the summers, when we worked, if we worked. Law school is different in some ways: yes you will still be learning arbitrary and theoretical crap, but it's tailored arbitrary and theoretical crap. The most important thing that is tailored is your fellow classmates, who will go on to be your future colleagues.

This is a fact that many 1L's fail to comprehend: these are people that you have to work with. It doesn't matter how awesome your memo was, how thorough your research, how pithy your opinions, at the end of the day you're going to have to be able to see these people on a fairly regular basis, and if they think you're a douchebag, your life just became hell.

I mention all this to get to this point: you don't shit where you eat. Especially if you're not entirely sure where your dinner table is. It seems some 1L's have an uncanny ability to piss off a majority of their peers quicker than Kanye at an awards ceremony. It happens every year. My first year, the infamous e-mail incident gave our law school a certainly unimpressive regional reputation. Thank you 1L. Last year, an individual felt the need to blatantly break SBA election laws, so he decided to run as a write-in candidate. He had to annoy the hell out of dozens of upperclassmen over nit-picky bullshit just so that he could get a blank space on the ballot. I have more fingers than he had votes. Thank you 1L. And if you thought these were isolated incidents, think again.

Consider the case of Dumb 1L for this year's class. This particular individual could not wait a month into law school before he pissed somebody off. For those uninitiated, laptops are the pancreas of law school. Everyone has one, everyone uses one, and while we're still not sure what good they are, they do provide some good comedy material. Everyone and their sister has used a laptop in class to entertain themselves through one of the many boring lectures we're subjected to. As such, several professors have have banned the use of laptops in class in order to facilitate discussion. Considering how many people use their laptop to hide behind during class discussion, myself included, I can understand where some professors would be peeved. The individual mentioned above decided to wage a one-man war against those professors' laptop policy. He made such a fuss over it, that the administration had to convene a student/faculty panel in order to discuss the issue in great detail. (I was selected to sit on this panel, and I'm sure everyone involved regrets it to this day. I'm okay with that.)

Even though the panel did not affect any existing policies or encourage any policies in the future, one way or the other, Dumb 1L wasn't done yet... He figured that he would run for elected office in law school. He would run for an SBA position, where "real" change is made. Even though this individual goes to law school, presumably graduated from college, and is assumed to have at least one eyeball located outside his asshole, he seemed perfectly unaware that there might be rules regarding elections. One is also left to assume that he was an undergrad philosophy major, because he also thought that the election would be about the issues, and not a popularity contest.

Dumb 1L then proceeded to break several of the election code rules, insisted on toeing several others, and was asked to account for his campaign. He ignored all warnings and requests. Failing to take responsibility (i.e. pulling his head out of his ass), Dumb 1L was dealt an insurmountable penalty, dooming him to inevitable failure in the general election.

To make matters worse, Dumb 1L proceeded to follow in the tradition of Enron-great Ken Lay, and took the position that "it's not my fault for breaking the law, it's their fault for enforcing it." Oh, and he did it on his blog, so that it could be recorded and then used so that I can ridicule him. That blog can be found here: http://www.noelbagwell.com/

Let this be a lesson to you, all you budding want-to-be-lawyers: whenever you enter a situation where you're unsure how people feel, what has preceded in the past, or where momentum is going, don't assume that the system is wrong and that you are right. (I'll give you a hint, starting out, you're wrong 95% of the time, and that's not a generalization, it's a rule you should live by). That's Rule #1, as for Rule #2, do your research. That should sound redundant to a student of the law, but you would be amazed at how few people actually take the time to find out whether or not they are wrong. If you followed Rule #1, your task should be determining how you are wrong, and then you should proceed in humble stoicism. And lastly, but most importantly, is Rule #3: after ignoring Rules #1 & #2, do not proceed to piss off the people that have been around longer than you are because you were too dumb to keep your mouth closed.

Yes, I know I'm preaching humility here, and that's as rare as a Law Review orgy, which is why you should pay attention even more. There will always be somebody older, somebody better, somebody smarter, somebody better looking, somebody richer, somebody more eloquent, and somebody more pissed off (that's me) than you are. If you jump into the situation thinking you know better than everybody else, not only are you going to be wrong, but you will just prove to everyone else that you're as dumb as they thought you were in the first place. Mark Twain was a smart dude, and he had a pretty good saying: "It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

On that note, I'm shutting my mouth.

For now...

Pulling a Cumberland Goes International

The Japanese have embraced the "Cumberland" philosophy:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80696308/

Oh yeah, don't watch that if you have epilepsy...

Trial Competitions

Law schoolers are separated into generally two categories. The first group is categorized as your accountant-style future lawyers. These guys LOVE the law, and have no problem pouring hours of work over seemingly irrelevant footnotes, all in the comfort of their window-less cubicle/basement, eyes tied to the endless stream of Westlaw headnotes. Saying you hate these lawyers is kinda like saying you hate tree moss: they're always gonna be around, and while they may not be fun to touch, it's a lot more work to get rid of them than it's worth. In law school, these guys excel on the curve, making them the most hated quiet people around.

The other group is characterized by a general uninterest, and sometimes outright disregard, for the law. This group uses the law when it suits them, but have a litany of constitutional objections to whatever law may oppose them. They are far more interested in which intellectual fight they can pick at any given time, and typically are more opinionated than Bible-beaters on Bourbon Street. These lawyers are everyone's favorite trial lawyers, leaders in litigation, kings of the courtroom, and generally masters in their own mind's eye. And in law school, they do trial competitions.

For the uninitiated, trial competitions are to practicing litigation as Keanu Reeve's Ted is to his Neo. (Competition : Practicing :: Ted : Neo, for you SAT-buffs). The first is much younger, less polished, and generally requires more acting and a lower intellectual appeal. Regardless, law students will spend hours working through the minute details of their case, analysizing foundations of hearsay law, for the sole purpose of getting in a Valentine's Day card. Oh, and did I mention you're judged on that by someone that has the same credit-hours as you?

Every once in a while, a team will show up that appreciates the obvious paradox that is trying a fictional case in front of a fictional court in a fictional jurisdiction (to the team that used the Big Lebowski back-story and mentioned "pederasts" in an objection response, touche....), but most of the time, its people that take things way too seriously, get way too worked up, and then get way too angry when someone that knows just about as much tells them they're doing it wrong.

So, what does this mean to you, the impartial, skeptical, and slightly asshole observer?

Epicness

I have already mentioned the grade-school BS that comes around law school. Now take that, mix with a healthy dose of ego and a disdain for professional courtesy, throw it into an intellectual UFC octagon, and leave a practicing lawyer as the bench judge, there to witness the pure carnage that is post-carnal-knowledge courtroom war. That, my friends, is where friendships, careers, and self-respect is lost.

I like to wrap myself up in those moments and rock myself to sleep at night, basking in the warm of others' shame-spirals. Good night, and good luck.