Ever since Justice O'Connor retired, the makeup of the Supreme Court has been a bit of an enigma. Some consider the court packed with hard-line right wingers, minus a few stalwart centerist holdouts. Indeed, when Justice Stevens is now the most liberal member, it's clear that the court is predominantly conservative. But is it really? We already know that Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are the conservative foundation, with Alito probably squarely in their camp as well (although I am not yet sure what to make of him). We also know that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens usually find themselves at odds with the other four (although I will not concede that they are, as a result, 'liberal'). Souter seems squarely in the middle, and much like Stevens was in the 70s and 80s, Souter seems to be the apolitical moderating force on the court. Nevertheless, Souter seems to be much less conservative than expected when he was nominated by Bush Sr., and many consider him part of what is now the liberal side of the court. Despite this movement to the right, there still appears to be a 4-4 faction; still much room for contention on the supreme court.
An then there is Kennedy. What to make of Justice Kennedy. Indeed, he is a bit of an enigma on the court, sometimes siding with the liberals (gay rights), and other times siding with the conservatives (abortion). In the wake of Gonzales v Carhart, it seems that Kennedy may indeed take O'Connor's place as the swing vote on the court, such as it is.
A very good article on this subject from Slate.com can be found here. I don't necessarily find it troubling that our supreme court has become more conservative over the past 20 years or so, as long as there is some balance. There are good arguments that the very liberal Warren court may have done more harm than good, even if I do find much of their activism attractive. A homogenous court is probably much more dangerous than a balanced one, and right now, such as it is, we seem to have some balance left. I do hope that Stevens can hold out for at least two more years. The thought of Bush nominating another member of the court makes me shudder (it's not a republican thing, mind you, it's a Bush thing).
Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
You know you're crazy when . . .
Despite the fact that I have two weeks off, I still can't get away from studying law. I have been reading my appellate advocacy book, off and on, and (for no reason I can think of) taking notes for my upcoming evidence class (which should be pretty demanding).
On a lighter note, I have discovered yet another great TV series from HBO (via netfix, of course). http://www.hbo.com/rome/
All I can say, is that it's too bad this series will only run two seasons. Again, HBO shows why they have the best programming on TV.
On a lighter note, I have discovered yet another great TV series from HBO (via netfix, of course). http://www.hbo.com/rome/
All I can say, is that it's too bad this series will only run two seasons. Again, HBO shows why they have the best programming on TV.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Reflections
This week I finished my first year of law school, my last exam on Thursday. While I won't have my grades back for several weeks, I am pretty comfortable with how I did and I'm sure I passed all of my classes, which means that after this term I will have earned 33 of the 90 credits for my degree. I have spent the last few days contemplating my experience so far, and looking forward to the next set of classes and beyond. I have to start thinking about my future now, but I think it's useful to reflect on this past year. Here are some of my observations.
First, law school isn't that bad. Now that sounds strange, but there is a prevailing opinion that law school exists somewhere in the lower rungs of Dante's inferno; that the law school experience is painful, and results in a degree that many find worthless. It's odd, but many point to the fact that there are more law students than practicing attorneys as evidence of the futility of attending law school to begin with.
I don't look at it that way, at least not after my first year. I find the method and the madness enjoyable and stimulating, and I know that I have accomplished more (academically) this past year than ever before in my life. I am not worried about work after school because I am confident in my own abilities. But that's besides the point. The bottom line is, law school isn't nearly as hard or as torturous as people say. Yes it's difficult, but it's not impossible. Yes teachers can be hard on you, but they can also be supportive. The law student who works hard will typically do pretty well, I really believe that.
I do know that there are plenty of people who can't handle school. I started in a very small class - 16 people (keeping in mind that I started a small branch campus that's now growing... my actual class size, including all campuses, is closer to 300). Of those 16, 8 are still in school, with a 9th currently on leave (we're all pretty sure she'll be back though). 5 dropped after the first term, the other three after 2nd term. The attrition rate at my school is over 50 percent (by the end of the first year), and I think nationally it's somewhere in the 40% range. Keep in mind that some people drop because they discover they don't want to be in law school, not because they can't hack it. I know that's the case for 3 people who dropped out of my class (they got perfectly fine grades). Others drop because they flunk out. Law school isn't for everyone, that's for sure.
Second, law school culture is, pretty much, exactly what people say it is. It's funny, but there are really only three kinds of people in law school: the student in it for the money, the student in it because he or she "loves the law", and the student who is in law school because they're unsure what else to do (IE "a law degree is useful, right?").
The first kind of student quickly comes to the realization that law school is work, and that the 'money' may or may not actually be there in the end. It is this student who quickly becomes disillusioned by school, often pointing out how much hell they have to go through just to pass their classes. They never realized that the reward they were seeking does not match the work they put in. This student either drops out or ends up in corporate or tax law, hating life. Not to disparage that kind of law, but it takes a special kind of person to be a tax or corporate attorney - someone who genuinely loves that kind of law.
The second kind of student tends to do pretty well in law school. This person is in law school because the law is what he or she wants to study. Much like the person who becomes a teacher because they want to, this person isn't motivated by money or status, but instead by an idealism that has driven him or her to law school. This student can become disillusioned, after all it's a lot of work, but this student can just as easily thrive. I would place myself in this category, and thankfully I haven't lost any of my own idealism (despite having to trudge through contracts).
The third kind of student is probably the most common, and in many ways the most perplexing. This is the person who did well in undergrad, but isn't sure what they want to do. Maybe parents pressured them into law school. Maybe they 'planned' on law school all along, but aren't sure why. Maybe they just didn't want to get a job after college yet, but didn't want to go to business school either. At any rate, this person can succeed or fail but it all depends on motivation. Some of these students are rock stars - that is, fantastic students who have a flawless work ethic (not to mention the brains). These students do very well, even if they aren't sure what they want to do. Often they find themselves somewhere along the way - that is, they find what they're good at and dive in. More often, however, this student goes through the motions, passing their classes but not standing out, and it is this student who graduates and has a really hard time finding a job. This is the person who ends up cynical and will characterize law school as a complete waste of time. Usually they end up working somewhere other than in the law.
Finally, I'm actually enjoying myself more now than I have in a very long time. I'll close this post here, but to all of those who think law school is a waste of time I have a message: don't go to law school. It's as simple as that. To all the rest, my message is also simple: do what moves you. It has taken me 15 years or so to take my own advice, and now I'm finally reaping the rewards.
First, law school isn't that bad. Now that sounds strange, but there is a prevailing opinion that law school exists somewhere in the lower rungs of Dante's inferno; that the law school experience is painful, and results in a degree that many find worthless. It's odd, but many point to the fact that there are more law students than practicing attorneys as evidence of the futility of attending law school to begin with.
I don't look at it that way, at least not after my first year. I find the method and the madness enjoyable and stimulating, and I know that I have accomplished more (academically) this past year than ever before in my life. I am not worried about work after school because I am confident in my own abilities. But that's besides the point. The bottom line is, law school isn't nearly as hard or as torturous as people say. Yes it's difficult, but it's not impossible. Yes teachers can be hard on you, but they can also be supportive. The law student who works hard will typically do pretty well, I really believe that.
I do know that there are plenty of people who can't handle school. I started in a very small class - 16 people (keeping in mind that I started a small branch campus that's now growing... my actual class size, including all campuses, is closer to 300). Of those 16, 8 are still in school, with a 9th currently on leave (we're all pretty sure she'll be back though). 5 dropped after the first term, the other three after 2nd term. The attrition rate at my school is over 50 percent (by the end of the first year), and I think nationally it's somewhere in the 40% range. Keep in mind that some people drop because they discover they don't want to be in law school, not because they can't hack it. I know that's the case for 3 people who dropped out of my class (they got perfectly fine grades). Others drop because they flunk out. Law school isn't for everyone, that's for sure.
Second, law school culture is, pretty much, exactly what people say it is. It's funny, but there are really only three kinds of people in law school: the student in it for the money, the student in it because he or she "loves the law", and the student who is in law school because they're unsure what else to do (IE "a law degree is useful, right?").
The first kind of student quickly comes to the realization that law school is work, and that the 'money' may or may not actually be there in the end. It is this student who quickly becomes disillusioned by school, often pointing out how much hell they have to go through just to pass their classes. They never realized that the reward they were seeking does not match the work they put in. This student either drops out or ends up in corporate or tax law, hating life. Not to disparage that kind of law, but it takes a special kind of person to be a tax or corporate attorney - someone who genuinely loves that kind of law.
The second kind of student tends to do pretty well in law school. This person is in law school because the law is what he or she wants to study. Much like the person who becomes a teacher because they want to, this person isn't motivated by money or status, but instead by an idealism that has driven him or her to law school. This student can become disillusioned, after all it's a lot of work, but this student can just as easily thrive. I would place myself in this category, and thankfully I haven't lost any of my own idealism (despite having to trudge through contracts).
The third kind of student is probably the most common, and in many ways the most perplexing. This is the person who did well in undergrad, but isn't sure what they want to do. Maybe parents pressured them into law school. Maybe they 'planned' on law school all along, but aren't sure why. Maybe they just didn't want to get a job after college yet, but didn't want to go to business school either. At any rate, this person can succeed or fail but it all depends on motivation. Some of these students are rock stars - that is, fantastic students who have a flawless work ethic (not to mention the brains). These students do very well, even if they aren't sure what they want to do. Often they find themselves somewhere along the way - that is, they find what they're good at and dive in. More often, however, this student goes through the motions, passing their classes but not standing out, and it is this student who graduates and has a really hard time finding a job. This is the person who ends up cynical and will characterize law school as a complete waste of time. Usually they end up working somewhere other than in the law.
Finally, I'm actually enjoying myself more now than I have in a very long time. I'll close this post here, but to all of those who think law school is a waste of time I have a message: don't go to law school. It's as simple as that. To all the rest, my message is also simple: do what moves you. It has taken me 15 years or so to take my own advice, and now I'm finally reaping the rewards.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Kill All Lawyers
This will be a short post. I came across a very worthwhile article written by Gerry Spence, a famous lawyer who represented Karen Silkwood, Imelda Marcos, and the Ruby Ridge boys, among others.
http://www.gerryspence.com/killalllawyers.pdf
The article is an argument in defense of trial lawyers who represent plaintiffs and criminal defendants; that the public ire toward them is wholly misplaced, and the media blitz against them is wrong. He makes the argument much better than I, so I simply urge you to read it and come to your own conclusions. It's relatively long (42 pages), but well worth the read.
http://www.gerryspence.com/killalllawyers.pdf
The article is an argument in defense of trial lawyers who represent plaintiffs and criminal defendants; that the public ire toward them is wholly misplaced, and the media blitz against them is wrong. He makes the argument much better than I, so I simply urge you to read it and come to your own conclusions. It's relatively long (42 pages), but well worth the read.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Moot
Last week I competed in the first year moot court competition. It's part of the criminal procedure class, so our problem naturally centered around a search and seizure issue. My partner and I were respondents, and in this case we represented the defendant. I have to say that we both had a great time, strange as that may seem.
Moot court is a competition that is, essentially, a simulation of oral arguments in front of the supreme court. At that point, there has already been a trial and at least one (and sometimes more than one) appeal. Each side (petitioner and respondent) has two "lawyers", each person gives a ten minute "speech" in front of the court. But it's far from a speech because the judges are constantly asking questions. My partner and I each prepared about ten minutes worth of material, and each of us maybe got through 1 or 2 minutes. The rest of the time we were answering questions from the judging panel. There is no interaction between the two competing teams, the interaction is with the court.
Good judges will ask pertinent questions, meaning I actually did get to present most of my argument (to the good panels). Bad judges will ask ridiculous questions, and sometimes even be rude. Those are really the hardest ones to deal with because the entire time I had to be deferential to the court, and still respond quickly (even curtly) to irrelevant questions. I have a friend (an old debater - you know who you are if you're reading this) who would go nuts watching the "yes your honor" and "no your honor" in response to some of the questions I was getting. For those who have done any academic debate, moot court is like a ten minute cross examination period without the combat - that is, the judges ALWAYS have the upper hand, and the lawyer has to be crafty in response. I must say, in retrospect, that it was far more fun than debate because it's so much more challenging.
We did well. Out of 30+ teams my partner and I made the quarterfinals, and were both pre-selected for early entry into the moot court program. That's essentially step-one if I want to compete on the national team (which, of course, I do). I'll be taking the class next term, so perhaps there will be more to blog about after all (heh heh).
So. . . stay tuned . . .
Moot court is a competition that is, essentially, a simulation of oral arguments in front of the supreme court. At that point, there has already been a trial and at least one (and sometimes more than one) appeal. Each side (petitioner and respondent) has two "lawyers", each person gives a ten minute "speech" in front of the court. But it's far from a speech because the judges are constantly asking questions. My partner and I each prepared about ten minutes worth of material, and each of us maybe got through 1 or 2 minutes. The rest of the time we were answering questions from the judging panel. There is no interaction between the two competing teams, the interaction is with the court.
Good judges will ask pertinent questions, meaning I actually did get to present most of my argument (to the good panels). Bad judges will ask ridiculous questions, and sometimes even be rude. Those are really the hardest ones to deal with because the entire time I had to be deferential to the court, and still respond quickly (even curtly) to irrelevant questions. I have a friend (an old debater - you know who you are if you're reading this) who would go nuts watching the "yes your honor" and "no your honor" in response to some of the questions I was getting. For those who have done any academic debate, moot court is like a ten minute cross examination period without the combat - that is, the judges ALWAYS have the upper hand, and the lawyer has to be crafty in response. I must say, in retrospect, that it was far more fun than debate because it's so much more challenging.
We did well. Out of 30+ teams my partner and I made the quarterfinals, and were both pre-selected for early entry into the moot court program. That's essentially step-one if I want to compete on the national team (which, of course, I do). I'll be taking the class next term, so perhaps there will be more to blog about after all (heh heh).
So. . . stay tuned . . .
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Yikes!
It has been too long since I updated this. I will make an effort to be more attentive and post more articles. Stay tuned!
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Before and After #1
I tend to be a fairly opinionated person. I know this does not surprise anyone, but I at least attempt to keep an open mind about things for which I have a strong opinion. Prior to coming to law school, I had many opinions about various areas of law, and today many of those opinions are undergoing changes. In other words, as I learn more, and gain a greater understanding of both legal rules and the reasons for them, I am slowly changing some of my pre-conceived notions regarding certain areas of law.
I used to have a fairly unflattering opinion of Tort law in general, agreeing with commonly held notions that many tort suits are frivolous, and many damage awards are far out of proportion with the kind of harm suffered. I came to law school believing that I wanted to stay as far away from tort law (practice), and would only study it because I have to. While I still don't believe I will practice tort law, most of my opinions about the field have undergone a dramatic change.
The simplest definition of "tort" is "a civil wrong". The goal of tort law is to compensate people who, through no fault (or less fault) of their own, have been harmed by intentional acts, negligent acts, defective products, etc. The purpose is generally two-fold - to compensate victims (who have suffered harm) and to deter "bad behavior" (or encourage "good behavior"). [note: there are other goals of tort law, and of course other rationale too. I'm trying to keep this straight-forward]
Ultimately these are very worthy goals, and in fact I tend to think most people would agree with them. Where most people have issues with torts is when the system seems to favor plaintiffs over defendants - that is, the balance is tipped too far to one side and is, in many instances, unfair. It is easy to have this opinion when we read stories about massive damages awarded for what appear to be frivolous (or perhaps "iffy") causes of action. The public reaction years ago to the award a woman won against McDonalds when she burned her legs on hot coffee is illustrative of this point - wasn't that her fault? Don't people realize that coffee is hot? The answer, unfortunately, is not so simple, and the trap most of us fall into (including me) is making judgments without knowing all of the facts.
Most people, once they learn all of the facts of the McDonald's case, tend to agree that it was a good verdict.
But not having all the facts of a particular case is not really the problem. Most people are rational enough to understand that when they make snap judgments, those opinions are subject to change once they hear 'the rest of the story'. Remember, these are people who sit on juries and award these verdicts (I would posit that many people who believe tort law is out of control have sat on juries and handed out big awards - these opinions are easy to have while we're armchair judges). The issue for me is really one of philosophy - that is, should we be compensating victims of accidents? should we hold someone responsible - sometimes someone who wasn't even directly involved in the accident - for these accidents? And how much should we make these people pay? Is there such a thing as too much?
There are no easy answers to these questions. For me, however, much of what I have learned about tort law is very encouraging and (although imperfect) the system has an overall goal of fairness to all parties to a law suit. Perhaps the most important element of this is the fact that these causes of action have to convince a jury of our peers. The jury system is perhaps the most ingenious, most effective means of weeding out the unworthy suits, and it works famously. One thing I learned early that I did not know is that an appeals court cannot overturn a jury verdict - they may only overturn decisions made by the judge (for example, to allow or exclude a piece of evidence).
But before cases even get to trial, there are procedural safeguards that protect the 'system' from hearing cases that have no merit. Probably the most obvious one is the fact that most cases can be (and typically are) settled without even going to trial. In fact, this is usually the best way of achieving a balance when it comes to compensating victims for harms (settlements are much faster than trials, and ultimately much cheaper). But if a case has no merit, well there are rules that allow defense attorneys to move to dismiss case before anyone even begins gathering evidence, and even rules that punish lawyers for bringing a frivolous lawsuit (anyone who has read A Civil Action may remember the rule 11 part of the book). The system takes these procedures very seriously for a very obvious reason - they are busy and the last thing courts need are frivolous suits clogging up their dockets. Yes each person has a right to his or her "day in court", however it is up to them to state a claim for which they can seek compensation, and our system is very good at weeding out those who do not do so.
Ultimately this means that our system at least attempts to allow people who should be compensated to recover, and those who should not typically do not. When mistakes are made, we have the appellate system and they take their job of correcting errors very seriously. The law is in a constant state of flux, but the ultimate goals, ultimately, are a good thing.
Stay tuned, I know this is broad and vague, I'll get more specific soon.
I used to have a fairly unflattering opinion of Tort law in general, agreeing with commonly held notions that many tort suits are frivolous, and many damage awards are far out of proportion with the kind of harm suffered. I came to law school believing that I wanted to stay as far away from tort law (practice), and would only study it because I have to. While I still don't believe I will practice tort law, most of my opinions about the field have undergone a dramatic change.
The simplest definition of "tort" is "a civil wrong". The goal of tort law is to compensate people who, through no fault (or less fault) of their own, have been harmed by intentional acts, negligent acts, defective products, etc. The purpose is generally two-fold - to compensate victims (who have suffered harm) and to deter "bad behavior" (or encourage "good behavior"). [note: there are other goals of tort law, and of course other rationale too. I'm trying to keep this straight-forward]
Ultimately these are very worthy goals, and in fact I tend to think most people would agree with them. Where most people have issues with torts is when the system seems to favor plaintiffs over defendants - that is, the balance is tipped too far to one side and is, in many instances, unfair. It is easy to have this opinion when we read stories about massive damages awarded for what appear to be frivolous (or perhaps "iffy") causes of action. The public reaction years ago to the award a woman won against McDonalds when she burned her legs on hot coffee is illustrative of this point - wasn't that her fault? Don't people realize that coffee is hot? The answer, unfortunately, is not so simple, and the trap most of us fall into (including me) is making judgments without knowing all of the facts.
Most people, once they learn all of the facts of the McDonald's case, tend to agree that it was a good verdict.
But not having all the facts of a particular case is not really the problem. Most people are rational enough to understand that when they make snap judgments, those opinions are subject to change once they hear 'the rest of the story'. Remember, these are people who sit on juries and award these verdicts (I would posit that many people who believe tort law is out of control have sat on juries and handed out big awards - these opinions are easy to have while we're armchair judges). The issue for me is really one of philosophy - that is, should we be compensating victims of accidents? should we hold someone responsible - sometimes someone who wasn't even directly involved in the accident - for these accidents? And how much should we make these people pay? Is there such a thing as too much?
There are no easy answers to these questions. For me, however, much of what I have learned about tort law is very encouraging and (although imperfect) the system has an overall goal of fairness to all parties to a law suit. Perhaps the most important element of this is the fact that these causes of action have to convince a jury of our peers. The jury system is perhaps the most ingenious, most effective means of weeding out the unworthy suits, and it works famously. One thing I learned early that I did not know is that an appeals court cannot overturn a jury verdict - they may only overturn decisions made by the judge (for example, to allow or exclude a piece of evidence).
But before cases even get to trial, there are procedural safeguards that protect the 'system' from hearing cases that have no merit. Probably the most obvious one is the fact that most cases can be (and typically are) settled without even going to trial. In fact, this is usually the best way of achieving a balance when it comes to compensating victims for harms (settlements are much faster than trials, and ultimately much cheaper). But if a case has no merit, well there are rules that allow defense attorneys to move to dismiss case before anyone even begins gathering evidence, and even rules that punish lawyers for bringing a frivolous lawsuit (anyone who has read A Civil Action may remember the rule 11 part of the book). The system takes these procedures very seriously for a very obvious reason - they are busy and the last thing courts need are frivolous suits clogging up their dockets. Yes each person has a right to his or her "day in court", however it is up to them to state a claim for which they can seek compensation, and our system is very good at weeding out those who do not do so.
Ultimately this means that our system at least attempts to allow people who should be compensated to recover, and those who should not typically do not. When mistakes are made, we have the appellate system and they take their job of correcting errors very seriously. The law is in a constant state of flux, but the ultimate goals, ultimately, are a good thing.
Stay tuned, I know this is broad and vague, I'll get more specific soon.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Lets just say that. . .
I survived my first term of law school. A- in 3 classes, B in the 4th for a 3.38 gpa. not a bad start, though I guess I blew my chance at graduating with a 4.0.
In other news, we're settling in to our new home rather nicely, and I will likely post some pictures just for the hell of it sometime in the future.
be on the lookout for interesting blogs coming soon, I'm starting to get into some interesting material in class this term, so I'll be sure to post something worthwhile soon enough . . .
In other news, we're settling in to our new home rather nicely, and I will likely post some pictures just for the hell of it sometime in the future.
be on the lookout for interesting blogs coming soon, I'm starting to get into some interesting material in class this term, so I'll be sure to post something worthwhile soon enough . . .
Saturday, September 09, 2006
whew
Been some time since I've posted anything, so this will just be a short note to bring all 5 or 6 of you up to date. My wife and dogs and I drove across most of the country in 4+ days with a U-Haul filled with our belongings, and made it without any incident at all. It was actually a rather easy trip, all things considered - the dogs handled it just fine and we had great weather the whole way. We didn't even get caught in Chicago traffic (a miracle all by itself).
Now we're mostly moved in to our new home here in western Michigan, and I've had my first week of classes for the next term. So far so good, I actually feel comfortable with school at this point. we did have a bit of weather last night, very cool electrical storm, looked a bit like this:
So far I only have one grade - an A- in Torts, which I'm very happy with. Our grades aren't supposed to be posted until week 4 (or earlier), so I'll just have to wait and stress out about it until they're all posted.
That's it for now.
Now we're mostly moved in to our new home here in western Michigan, and I've had my first week of classes for the next term. So far so good, I actually feel comfortable with school at this point. we did have a bit of weather last night, very cool electrical storm, looked a bit like this:
So far I only have one grade - an A- in Torts, which I'm very happy with. Our grades aren't supposed to be posted until week 4 (or earlier), so I'll just have to wait and stress out about it until they're all posted.
That's it for now.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Finally
Last night I took my last final exam, for property 1. By the time I was finished, I felt completely brain dead. I can't even remember what I wrote for the last third of my essay. I still think I did OK on all of my exams, but boy am I glad it's over, for the first term at least.
I'll only make one observation about all of this prior to getting my grades (no matter how I feel about my exams, I won't really know until I see the results). The greatest feeling I have right now is that I actually belong here. I understand the law (so far), and understand the process. I seem to excel at certain areas, and can even hold my own in the areas I'm not so strong in. That feeling, that I am where I need to be, is confirmation for all of the sacrifices that I and others are making in order to do this.
Today I fly back to Portland for a break, and to move my wife, dogs, belongings and so forth back here to Michigan. I'll have two weeks of vacation with my son, mixed in with (I'm sure) frenetic bouts of packing and the like, and then a 5 day drive across the country in a u-haul. During that time I'm not too likely to update my blog, but stay tuned. Hopefully my next post will be about my grades (cross your fingers).
I'll only make one observation about all of this prior to getting my grades (no matter how I feel about my exams, I won't really know until I see the results). The greatest feeling I have right now is that I actually belong here. I understand the law (so far), and understand the process. I seem to excel at certain areas, and can even hold my own in the areas I'm not so strong in. That feeling, that I am where I need to be, is confirmation for all of the sacrifices that I and others are making in order to do this.
Today I fly back to Portland for a break, and to move my wife, dogs, belongings and so forth back here to Michigan. I'll have two weeks of vacation with my son, mixed in with (I'm sure) frenetic bouts of packing and the like, and then a 5 day drive across the country in a u-haul. During that time I'm not too likely to update my blog, but stay tuned. Hopefully my next post will be about my grades (cross your fingers).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)