Decision.

Georgetown has decided my fate:

Or at least my fate as far as Georgetown Law is concerned. Now I'll just have to race to the mail every day for the next week to find out exactly what that decision is.

Decision.
Decision.
Decision.

hmmm....

Posted 02:47 PM | Comments (5) | law school

Good News (sort of)

Held In Contempt is pointing to a two-week-old AP story that says:

Most new lawyers won't consider working for government or public advocacy groups because their need for money to pay off massive student loans leads them to the more lucrative private sector, a study being released Monday found.

That's actually the bad news. Now for the good news:

In the law study, about 68 percent of public interest employers surveyed—government offices, legal aid organizations, public defenders and other nonprofit groups—reported recruiting difficulties.

and:

"The bottom line is America's law school graduates are drowning in debt and shut out of public service at a time when the federal government is facing losses of over half its work force due to retirements, " said Max Stier, president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service.

So according to this study (and a huge helping of "the cup is half-full" optimism), those of us heading toward a public interest legal career will have a nice range of jobs to choose from, so long as we can find ourselves some good loan repayment assistance programs (LRAPs). Too bad that's such a big if.

Speaking of which, I should be hearing from Georgetown any day now: their "early decision" application track promises admissions decisions by December 13. Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of Georgetown's LRAP?

Posted 07:12 PM | Comments (3) | law school

Consumer Identity

Welcome to the random and sporadic world of ai, where there' s always something interesting going on, even if it's sometimes really hard to tell. And today it's All Alice All Day, and what could be finer? Hi Alice. Good luck on those exams.

In other news, I heard on the radio today that "identity theft is a consumer protection issue." That makes sense, considering the fact that "identity theft" is the term we use to describe what happens if someone steals our credit card numbers, social security number, pin numbers, mother's maiden name, etc. So we have these "identities" that are made up primarily of numbers and a few random little bits of information that, when assembled appropriately, tell computers and banks and businesses who we are. These identities are what enable consumption. Without these identities, we cannot consume or otherwise participate in our material culture, hence identity theft is a consumer protection issue.

However, if we were going to be precise about it, we'd have to acknowledge that these are not our "identities," but our consumer identities; therefore, the appropriate way to describe what happens when these bits of information are stolen would be "consumer identity theft." But we don't call it that. Why not? Have lost, or are we quickly losing, any idea of "identity" other than our identity as consumers? If we allow "consumer identity" to be reduced to "identity" as if the two are essentially equivalent terms, aren't we somehow also reducing ourselves to consumers, as if "self" and "consumer" are essentially equivalent terms?

There was a time when "lying politician" was not redundant. Has "consumer identity" become redundant? And if so, what have we lost in the process? I bet Professor Cass R. Sunstein would have a thing or two to say about this. (For a quick holiday read, check out Republic.com, especially chapter five.)

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a lot of holiday shopping to do.

Posted 02:41 PM | Comments (1) | life generally