Cara memperbanyak Backlink Dari Alexa
Zevera
Yandex
Bing
Alexa
Wikipedia
Dmoz
Yahoo
oneoffbook
[Y]ou refer to St. Thomas Law School as having done “the right thing and ‘fessed up when it discovered that it had been misrepresenting its placement data.” This is an important paper on an important topic, and I’m glad you’re tackling it head on. I fear, though, that this line may lead readers to lump St. Thomas in with other law schools that have shown a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation. Our oversight was a one-time occurrence that resulted from an erroneous entry of data.I'm happy to help Dean Vischer clarify his school's role. There's a huge difference between making a mistake and engaging in a pattern of deception.
Specifically, on line 169 of our Class of 2010 U.S. News Employment data report, the number of graduates known to be employed at graduation was correctly listed as 51 graduates (or 32.9% of our 155 total number of 2010 graduates). Unfortunately, on line 164 of the report, we incorrectly listed 125 graduates (or 80.6%) as employed at graduation. U.S. News listed that incorrect number in its law school rankings. We immediately contacted U.S. News to alert them to the error. The nine month graduation rate of 86.5% was correct in the rankings.
We did make a one-time mistake, and we paid the price by being unranked for a year. I’m hoping to avoid leaving the impression that we are another example of law schools trying to fudge the truth over a period of years.
Lost in the furor surrounding one large firm’s current public relations headache are deeper problems that go to the heart of the prevailing big law-firm business model itself. Regrettably, as with previous episodes that have produced high-profile scandals, the present outcry will probably pass and the billable hour will endure.It shouldn’t. The billable-hour system is the way most lawyers in big firms charge clients, but it serves no one. Well, almost no one. It brings most equity partners in those firms great wealth. Law firm leaders call it a leveraged pyramid. Most associates call it a living hell.
Dear [stakeholder or possible donor]:Of course, it's easier for me to write a post like this one given that we did just fine in the rankings. But some of the press releases that are pouring in are just too funny to ignore.
We are pleased to tell you that our law school ranking [increased more than we expected] [increased a negligible amount, but we're going to tout the change as if it were huge] [went down far enough that we've called in sick for the foreseeable future] [went down a negligible amount that will provide us with a disproportionate amount of grief for far too long] [stayed the same].
We are, of course, the best school in [the country--if we're Yale] [the region] [the state] [the city] [the part of the city in which we are located]. Our quality is reflected by [our reputational ranking] [our admissions numbers] [our placement rate] [our bar passage rate] [the ability of our marketing people to think creatively].
Even though we're [superb] [excellent] [very good] [really, really decent] [surprised that we're still here], we have committed to doubling our efforts to [track down unemployed alumni on various social media sites so that we can fill in the now-less-easy-to-cheat-on placement statistics] [rethink our curriculum in changing times] [write imaginative press releases that make us look as if we're moving in the right direction] [figure out how to steal budget money from other units on campus].
We thank you for your support, and we look forward to giving you even better news next year.
Dear Law Review Editors from Every U.S. Law Review:I've decided that, in every new publication contract, I'm going to insert a provision barring the law review editors from removing my contractions or changing my writing style. Enough is enough.
Please let your authors use their own writing styles. Please do not hew to the mistaken notion that your authors must use clunky and unnecessarily formal writing in order for your law review to be taken seriously by its readers. All you're doing with these nitpicking edits is ticking off your authors. Our names are on our articles, not yours, and trust me: we know how we write, and we like our writing enough to do it for a living. When you've written for a living for over two decades (three decades, in my case, if you count the time before I entered academia), you'll understand how we feel.
Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?OK, Mr. Smith: POO is your concern? The fact that those who serve our country are willing to do so, knowing that many of them (1) won't come back alive or (2) will come back with severe injuries, is what makes me so proud of our troops. My guess is that the more serious risks are what our people think about before they go into battle. Not about poo. My hubby has not even once listed "poo" among the serious risks that he and his colleagues faced.
Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.
James: "Have you backed it up?"You know where this is going, right?
Me: "I think so, but I'm not positive. What should we do?"
James: "Why don't we do this--if we have to replace your hard drive, I'll call you first, so that you can take the computer home, make sure it's backed up, and then we can replace the hard drive."
Me: "What a great idea. Thanks!"