AskMe != AskToBeJudged

April 29, 2008 7:10 AM

I slept on it, and I’m still mad about it. This thread, which contains a clear and specific question, should not be a referendum on the poster’s character or the legal profession.

The question was not, should I go to law school? Nor was it, do you think I would make a good lawyer?

Frankly, it just seems shitty to tell someone who is trying to rebuild their life that they can't do it and shouldn't try because they're guaranteed to fail... based on what is really very scant information. I hope I'm not overreacting by posting this in MeTa, but I really think something is wrong with those answers. There were some answers in the thread that did address the poster's question and seemed very helpful, so this doesn't appear to be one of those times when there simply IS no answer to the question as posed.

posted by prefpara to Etiquette/Policy at 7:10 AM (134 comments total)

You're overreacting. The OP's opening comments were like an advertisement for bad news. So if I, a layperson with no knowledge of the State Board's protocol for Bar admission, was to comment (and don't tell me Ask Me isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment) I'd be hard pressed not to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Why do you feel it's your duty to rescue the OP from criticism?
posted by docpops at 7:22 AM on April 29, 2008

It's a tricky thing sometimes to determine if answers that question the entire premise of the question are acceptable. Given the fact that the thread contains many questions, some of which are very open-ended (Should I even bother to try?, for example), I think it is OK to present answers that the asker may not want to hear. In this case, my two cents is that the specific answers you are calling out here do a decent to good job of presenting a view that the asker may not have considered.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:25 AM on April 29, 2008

don't tell me Ask Me isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment

Ask Me isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment. At least, that's my understanding (and strong preference).
posted by prefpara at 7:25 AM on April 29, 2008 [8 favorites]

If you think the uninformed don't have a place at the table then petition the mods to eliminate the medical threads while you're at it.
posted by docpops at 7:26 AM on April 29, 2008

and don't tell me Ask Me isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment

Speaking of things you'll find people will be hard pressed not to acknowledge.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:27 AM on April 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

Ouch. People are harsh. I find it interesting that the people who made those comments (especially the "I wouldn't want you as my lawyer") seem to think that anyone who has earned a JD, passed the bar and is practicing law are must always be stellar examples of clean living, virtuous choices and impeccable mental health. I mean, you can be a lawyer (or almost anything else) and have a checkered history, especially as a young person, of questionable choices and minor mental health problems. Just because we don't have access to a full disclosure of the life history of the people whose services we retain throughout our lives (lawyers, doctors, social workers, therapists, accountants, etc.) doesn't mean we'd like everything we read if we had the chance.
posted by sneakin at 7:29 AM on April 29, 2008 [5 favorites]

Previously, on the AskMe isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment show!
posted by cashman at 7:31 AM on April 29, 2008

I mean, you can be a lawyer (or almost anything else) and have a checkered history

Eliot Spitzer anyone?
posted by spicynuts at 7:33 AM on April 29, 2008

If you think the uninformed don't have a place at the table then petition the mods to eliminate the medical threads while you're at it.

The mods do delete some AskMes as "DoctorFilter", especially if they are about serious medical problems.

One of the (few) bad things about AskMe is that if you ask a very specific question that only a few experts know about, you will get a lot of answers from people who aren't experts and can't answer the question properly.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:33 AM on April 29, 2008

prefpara - what if this poster said they were accepted to flight school, or were driving a bus full of children to school? The poster basically says in every way possible that whether for medical, social, or psychological reasons, they tend to be a fuck-up. And from what one can discern they don't give one the sense that they have confronted the root causes of their [petty theft, multiple job terminations...]. Then they essentially go on an anonymous querying site to find out what the general public thinks of their plans to go to law school. Perhaps what's most surprising is that more people didn't mention that they cringe at the thought of someone in her position taking on a career in which the livelihoods of others are in her hands.
posted by docpops at 7:34 AM on April 29, 2008 [4 favorites]

I also think you're overreacting. The poster wanted comment about whether or not she could make it as a lawyer, and she got it.

I'm confused about your link to the "referendum on the legal profession," which seems to be nothing like that at all. I think you're kind of thin skinned. I'm not a lawyer, but I do think lawyer jokes are stupid, and I could find nothing wrong with it.
posted by OmieWise at 7:35 AM on April 29, 2008

Citing ikkyu2 as a evidence in your case is not exactly a stellar argument.
posted by spicynuts at 7:38 AM on April 29, 2008

I don't think I see anything specifically wrong with toxic's comment. It's harsh, and brutally honest, but the questioner did say "but I thought I would see if any of the lawyers or smart people here have any thoughts, insight or advice for me."

toxic isn't saying that this person can't be a lawyer, just that based on the information given that it will be a difficult path to follow. He further gives a seemingly straightforward reason why the askers finances might be a source of concern, which is exactly what the asker was concerned about. He then further suggests that the person talk to the state bar about possible recourses, which to my untrained ear sounds like a reasonable answer.

But maybe I'm missing something.
posted by quin at 7:39 AM on April 29, 2008

What I got from that thread was that lawyers seem unwilling or unable to define moral turpitude in any meaningful way.

One of the (few) bad things about AskMe is that if you ask a very specific question that only a few experts know about, you will get a lot of answers from people who aren't experts and can't answer the question properly.

Agreed. AskMe has a sweet spot. The questions that fail are the ones where almost all or almost none of the readers can intelligently answer.
posted by MarkAnd at 7:43 AM on April 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

Maybe some comments were deleted, but I don't see a lot of "you are guaranteed to fail" type comments.

as for commenting without special knowledge, well, it isn't very helpful, but if someone has something intelligent to say then have at it.

anyway, I know several lawyers with at least as much crap in their backgrounds as anon. full disclosure is the key. if all that stuff is in the past it need not be an impediment to becoming a lawyer, but there will have to be some uncomfortable discussion about the matters. There are also lawyers who specialize in this area. it might pay for anon to contact one.
posted by caddis at 7:44 AM on April 29, 2008

I thought it was a kindness to the poster. I appreciate the desire to give someone some cheerleading who can probably use it, but I can't really think of a more expensive or time-consuming way for someone with unresolved ADHD and difficulty with accountability to torture themselves and be tortured by others than law school.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 8:04 AM on April 29, 2008

The idea that one must be some sort of paragon of virtue in order to practice law flies in the face of everything I know about real life as it is lived in real reality. What bizarre parallel universe have I woken in this morning?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:04 AM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

I removed a few comments that were "OMG dont do that!" for various reasons. I was pretty interested in the question because there is a weird "I'm not sure what the moral character aspect of the bar is?" question at its core that really is fascinating (I know it plagued my (ADD, law student) ex who was worried he'd fail for a speeding ticket or something), but since most people seem to not know, it's just turning into speculationfilter about The OPs Fitness for the Bar. That said, the OP may have overshared in the interests of completeness which I think may have set a tone early on that was hard to recover from.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:05 AM on April 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

The question was not, should I go to law school? Nor was it, do you think I would make a good lawyer?

Not a referendum on the poster's character? In many state bar are allowed to refuse admission based on character. Some state bar recommendation forms as if the person giving the recommendation knows of anything in the applicant's character which should weigh against their application.

Merely wondering whether you should lie on a document you have to swear is a true an accurate representation of the facts is the sign of someone with questionable character.

So the post was well on its way to a disaster when it went up.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:06 AM on April 29, 2008

You are overreacting. The question was ‘will they let me be a lawyer?’ The implication was clear that if not, there was no point is going to law school. The question ‘should I go to law school’ is in fact logically nested within the poster’s question.

ikkyu2's comment should not have been deleted. His was a reaction which a proportion of the poster's prospective clients might have agreed with. He wasn't nice about it but law is not a game for the thin skinned. As a member of a regulated profession with similar character and fitness requirements to those of the legal profession, his was a more informed point of view than most.

I think toxic's comment is entirely legitimate. The final comment you linked to, disparagement of the profession, was just noise and deserved to be deleted.

For whatever reason you appear to have become emotionally invested in the poster’s attempt to ‘rebuild their life’. The point is made repeatedly in comments in the thread that our actions have consequences. In this context the poster’s prior actions have likely made obtaining legal certification difficult. You may not like that but it is a fact.

You think that there is ‘scant information’ in the post. I disagree. Others and I think that there is sufficient information there to conclude that obtaining certification would likely be a problematic. Again, not nice but a fact.

Finally, you say that comment makers are ‘judging’ the poster. The poster was well aware that she’d be judged by the admissions board. That is way she posed the question, to see what the collective view on what their judgment would be. To have not judged the poster in this context would have been to have failed to engage with the question that she’s asking.
posted by dmt at 8:08 AM on April 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

docpops So if I, a layperson with no knowledge of the State Board's protocol for Bar admission, was to comment...

Why would you comment on something you have no knowledge about? For shits and giggles?
posted by signal at 8:09 AM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

it just seems shitty to tell someone who is trying to rebuild their life that they can't do it and shouldn't try because they're guaranteed to fail... based on what is really very scant information.

Maybe so. However, the purpose of AskMe is not to provide comfort and encouragement to every questioner, but rather to provide useful answers that may or may not be comforting or encouraging.

The OP asked whether they have trouble with the bar exam because of character issues. In this case, which do you think would be more charitable: telling the OP to go through with it merely because you want to be supportive and encouraging, even if they are very likely to fail; or telling the OP that they are taking the risk of wasting a great deal of time, effort, and money on getting a degree that may prove to be useless? The former may seem to be better, because it makes you feel good; but the latter may in fact prove to be better, because it could be genuinely useful to the OP regardless of how it makes you feel.
posted by googly at 8:19 AM on April 29, 2008

It was a difficult question. There were several issues at play.

Personally, I think that this:

Ask Me isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment.

...is true, and, as such, toxic should not have commented, because he clearly isn't well informed about one of the important issues here. That is: I don't think toxic knows much about ADHD.
posted by Viomeda at 8:22 AM on April 29, 2008

The latter is better if it's true and you actually know what you're talking about. If you're just saying it because, hey OP, from that brief character sketch you seem to me like you're kind of a loser, then it's definitly not better.
posted by flashboy at 8:23 AM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Why would you comment on something you have no knowledge about? For shits and giggles?

Well, I didn't comment in the thread for exactly that reason.

but I thought I would see if any of the lawyers or smart people here have any thoughts, insight or advice for me.

Since I am neither, I abstained. But were I a smart person, I would have been justified in responding, no? And were the resulting shits and giggles you got from your pointedly inane comment above worth it?
posted by docpops at 8:27 AM on April 29, 2008

The question was not, should I go to law school? Nor was it, do you think I would make a good lawyer?

There ought to be a 'read the question' requirement for MeTa posts regarding AskMes. In fact, this thread ought to have been closed with no comment given this stinking idiocy at its core.

C&F exams are a tremendously stressful thing for many people with checkered pasts, not the least because of the massive debt law students take on and the fact that *SURPRISE* many would-be lawyers are not saints. This is an examination of a law student's character and fitness to practice one the original 'professions,' before that word stopped meaning a respectable occupation akin to nobility and started to mean highly-paid labor of any sort. It seems weird to many that a job might have such a 'character' requirement, but think of it like this: with all the lawyer jokes and stigma out there, think about how much worse it would be if the people who FAILED the C&F were seated.

I think the question itself, and many of the concerns offered there, were both perfect uses of Ask Metafilter, where there's a substantial population of people with experience of C&Fs. My only objection is to those who think the asker's use of metafilter for this purpose is proof of unfitness: anonymous questions on this site are the BEST way to get good advice without poisoning the well (as you would be consulting the admission's office at a prospective school.) We give good answer here. The problem is that C&F is so murky that there aren't many good answers other than, a. don't get caught lying, and b. don't admit to sex work.

I, for one, wish I could have read ikkyu2's response: I strongly doubt it was as objectionable as you've said.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:40 AM on April 29, 2008

I know it plagued my (ADD, law student) ex who was worried he'd fail for a speeding ticket or something)
Not me, but possibly TMI about other people.
posted by tellurian at 8:47 AM on April 29, 2008

Well, it seems clear that there are a number of people who sincerely think that the poster WAS asking for MeFi to weigh in on her character and whether or not she should go to law school. I disagree completely, but the fact that different people have different interpretations of this question is just, I guess, life. To those people: I really don't mean to attack you, and I'm sorry if my post came across that way. I do read this question differently, and I don't think that makes me (or you) stupid.

To those who read the question the same way that I did and still felt that it would be good to post and tell the asker that she can't or shouldn't be a lawyer: I think we have a significant difference of opinion as to how AskMe should function and what appropriate answers look like. I don't understand what value is added by your approach.
posted by prefpara at 8:51 AM on April 29, 2008

ikkyu2's answer should not have been deleted.
posted by matthewr at 8:55 AM on April 29, 2008

The thread, as is now with all the deleted comments, is pretty innocuous. I know of three lawyers that are posting in that thread and most all of the advice seems pretty spot on or presented very well. I don't get it.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:00 AM on April 29, 2008

I flagged the one about how law in general is a waste of anyone's time. But those harping on the poster's financial health and apparent drifting-through-lifeness were raising very valid points, even though they were missing the center of the question: how likely am I to not pass the character & fitness exam.

I teach law (as an adjunct) in addition to practicing it. Every one I know who knows someone who is considering law school sends them to me to talk about it. Every department meeting I ever sat in I suggested taking fewer students. Those links someone dumped to the WSJ and NALP discussing how a law degree has the reputation of guaranteeing a job (and one at six figures) and how out of synch with reality that is are now on a card in my wallet. The people I know who stayed unemployed longest after graduation or losing a job are attorneys from top tier law schools, some of whom clerked at the federal level. The people I know who make more than 60k a year? Not one is a colleague from law school (they are, in fact, mostly programmers). The people I know who actually love the tasks of their jobs? Few are attorneys.

There are lots of reasons to go to law school. Sometimes being an attorney is interesting and fun. I like being paid to think. Law school, for the most part, however, means graduating 80k-120k in debt and making 50k a year. It's not a decision to make lightly nor a course you should take if you have a serious impediment to gaining entrance to the bar. If you already have money difficulties, it's only going to exacerbate them. Only for a small percentage of law students is the law degree like winning the lottery. And the face-time commitment that goes with those salaries burns through a fair percentage of those.

It's a broader answer than the poster wanted, but it's not frivolous information.
posted by crush-onastick at 9:04 AM on April 29, 2008 [8 favorites]

Not me, but possibly TMI about other people.

Nothing I haven't spoken about here before. HE DIDN'T GET A SPEEDING TICKET. Also, he passed the bar, ADD and all. Then he moved to Palau, yay for ex-boyfriends.

But, more to the point, we sometimes see people trying to frame their questions in such a way that it's not so narrow as to be unanswerable. The kiss of death to these questions is a tagline of "any other advice would be useful too" It makes me go "Oh shit." and it makes other people say "oh good, I have Other Advice" and leads to stuff like what happened in this thread. The door was opened, people with strong opinions rushed in.

I agree, the OP asked for people to basically say "I'm a smart person and you seem like you would be a bad lawyer/law student based on all the stuff you personally told me about yourself." and I don't see how it would go otherwise. THAT said, it's still not okay to vent spleen on people because you don't like their choices or, at some level it offends you that people of questionable moral character would become lawyers. That shit is off-topic and contributes to fighty AskMes and MeTa threads like this one. So, there is an "irritable spleen venting" aspect to some AskMe comment deletions because they contribute to thread derails and fighting and really if you can't answer the question without calling the OP names, don't bother.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:05 AM on April 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

I've given nearly 500 answers on the green. Many of them are harsh. This is the first time I've been called out in the grey. Curiously, I think it's one of the times that I deserved it least.

I stand by my comment. I'm glad to see others supporting it, and glad to see it's still there.

The poster asked whether her past would be a problem passing the Character and Fitness interview of the state bar certification process [emp. mine]... and then you call people out for making (innocuous) statements about the poster's character.

I don't care that she used to be a sex worker, or that the sorry state of health care in this country thrust her into debt at what should've been a very happy time. I don't care that she's got ADHD. I'm not making a character judgement when I say that it doesn't sound like law school (or the legal profession) is the right thing for the poster at this time. It's got nothing to do with whether I think the profession should be open to her (I do). It's not that I don't want her to be successful at continuing to change her life for the better.

It's that it sounds as if there's a better than average chance that she'll be a trainwreck during her first year -- shattering her confidence further, and incurring more debt, and very likely putting her and her child in a worse place than they are right now.

Are you really saying that the only way to support her is to say, "You Go Girl!", to tell her she's doing the right thing, because how dare I suggest that her ambitions and her best interests might not be perfectly in alignment? Askme is not supposed to be an echo chamber or a support network.

Successful law students (and successful lawyers) don't have un(der)treated ADHD. They don't have self-confidence problems (if anything, they tend to have arrogance problems). They definitely don't allow false items to stay on their credit report. They don't have trouble with deadlines. They know how to handle impossible workloads, and don't spin their wheels trying to get started on a project.

That is not the person that the poster describes herself as. She can change and grow into that sort of person (that's why I was careful to use phrases like ...school weeds out people like this instead of people like you). Perhaps someday she'll be a fine attorney, but the way I read her question, it doesn't sound like today is that day.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with telling her so.
posted by toxic at 9:09 AM on April 29, 2008 [4 favorites]

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that "you go girl" is the only appropriate answer. "You go girl" would not be an appropriate answer to the question "Are they going to let me be a lawyer?"

That question is the only question that I read the poster as asking. I do not read the poster as asking, "should I go to law school? Is that right for me at this time? Will my first year be a trainwreck?"

That's why, toxic, I did not think your answer was a good one. We read the question very differently. If I also read the poster as asking everyone to weigh in on her general plan, then I would not have a problem with the answer that you posted (although I disagree with some of what you say).
posted by prefpara at 9:17 AM on April 29, 2008

don't tell me Ask Me isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment

Ask Me isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment.

The poster asked whether her past would be a problem passing the Character and Fitness interview of the state bar certification process [emp. mine]... and then you call people out for making (innocuous) statements about the poster's character.

Only someone with actual knowledge of what a Character and Fitness interview is like have any business trying to answer. Just because the word "character" is involved doesn't mean a layman's idea of what the questioner's character is like has any relevance.
posted by languagehat at 9:23 AM on April 29, 2008 [4 favorites]

For "have" read "has."
posted by languagehat at 9:23 AM on April 29, 2008

yes, there are nasty opinions displayed in that thread.
but it is a tough question and the op should hear them, if only because having dealt with them once will make it a bit easier to shrug them off at another point in her life.

the thread contains enough valuable information to be worth not deleting as a whole. I personally am against selective content moderation as it distorts the actual timeline.
posted by krautland at 9:25 AM on April 29, 2008

prefpara, read the post again. She says, "Should I even bother to try?"

"No" is a legitimate answer. And frankly, based on my experience with the bar admissions process, that would be my answer to her. I think she's going to end up wasting a lot of money on a degree she can't use. And the myth that "legal (sic) degrees are helpful in getting many jobs" is just that.
posted by amro at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2008

Just because the word "character" is involved doesn't mean a layman's idea of what the questioner's character is like has any relevance.

That just strikes me as odd. How is it that an average person is not able to define "character"? Do professional standards of character differ? And if they do, then aren't you implying that they are actually more permissive of past poor judgement than the average person feels is allowable, and thus denigrating the legal profession further?

By your standard there should be no such thing as a jury of the public, just groups of experts panelled to hear cases in the court.
posted by docpops at 9:34 AM on April 29, 2008

How is it that an average person is not able to define "character"?

Huh? I have no idea what you mean by that. But it may be relevant to point out that there is no such thing as "an average person," and that different people define "character" differently.

Do professional standards of character differ?

Yes, but we're not talking about "professional standards of character," we're talking about something called "a Character and Fitness interview." I don't know what that involves, and I'm guessing neither do you. That being the case, we should shut up and let someone who does answer the question.

And if they do, then aren't you implying that they are actually more permissive of past poor judgement than the average person feels is allowable, and thus denigrating the legal profession further?

No, and what the Jesus fuck are you going on about?
posted by languagehat at 9:37 AM on April 29, 2008 [9 favorites]

Do professional standards of character differ?

Yes. For example, in a profession where you are entrusted with your client's money, your history of financial responsibillity impacts your perceived fitness to practice in that profession.

By your standard there should be no such thing as a jury of the public, just groups of experts panelled to hear cases in the court.

Uh, yeah. In terms of bar examiners, anyway. In my state bar admissions cases are heard by a panel of three lawyers.
posted by amro at 9:39 AM on April 29, 2008

I'm probably a bad person, but the original question just seemed like another fine entry in what I like to think of as AskMe performance art. Anonymous poster creates absurd question framed with the most ludicrous possible circumstances; madness ensues. Whee!
posted by Skot at 9:49 AM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

toxic's username = eponysterical....
posted by Lynsey at 9:53 AM on April 29, 2008

languagehat - you are completely correct. It's entirely possible that the Character and Fitness interview for the Bar is an oral challenge of one's knowledge of cinematic portrayals of villainy and heroism followed by a fifty yard dash and timed jumping jacks, just as it was the three times I had them for medical training. I stand chastened and humbled.
posted by docpops at 10:04 AM on April 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

skot: I though the same thing and flagged it.

but in the chance it was sincere, I stand by my answer: only her local board of bar examiners can give her useful guidance into whether or not she'll be an acceptable candidate.
posted by crush-onastick at 10:12 AM on April 29, 2008

docpops, maybe it would help if you thought of it as Character and Fitness to Practice Law.
posted by amro at 10:17 AM on April 29, 2008

Frankly, it just seems shitty to tell someone who is trying to rebuild their life that they can't do it and shouldn't try because they're guaranteed to fail...

I don't think "Don't tell the truth if it will hurt a good person" is a real helpful approach to AskMe.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:21 AM on April 29, 2008

the original question just seemed like another fine entry in what I like to think of as AskMe performance art

I thought the same thing.
posted by amyms at 11:04 AM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

If you have no experience working in mental health, no demonstrated background in pharmacology and can't muster even anecdotal information to base a declarative statement about what someone can achieve with an untreated mental disorder, you can a) not answer the question because you have no academic knowledge or professional expertise to draw on or b) you can pull some bullshit out of your ass and have people call you out on it.

This is why I generally try to box my shit in real tight on AskMe.
posted by The Straightener at 11:21 AM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Well, I don't think it can be a standard or anything for the site, but it would be nice if people gave their depressing, judgemental answers (which are, yes, sometimes appropriate) in a supportive context.

Not written hugs or anything, but if you are telling somebody a door is closed to them, you should give them advice towards how they can find the key to that door.
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:46 AM on April 29, 2008

The question was wide open, asking for thoughts, insight or advice on the scenario laid out by anon. Personally, I thought the answers were excellent, even including a quick google of NC standards for the C & F, some inexpensive suggestions on how to get consultative advice, etc.

Prefpara, I sometimes worry, as you do, that we might dash dreams in the bud phase, but frankly I worry even more about sugar coating some basic facts, the most important of which are that anon has a little bud of her own, is in debt, has ADHD and a past history of making poor decisions for herself. Might she make her dream to be a lawyer come true? Sure, but the odds are not with her on this.

I know there are certain AskMe rules of engagement. If we overstepped our bounds, maybe it was because some may have felt the questions being asked weren't the ones we think should have been asked. Sometimes helping people to reframe their own questions is more valuable than factual answers about a state's C & F requirements or a particular lawyer's experience with this process. I think this is one of those times.
posted by LiveLurker at 12:05 PM on April 29, 2008

Successful law students (and successful lawyers)... don't have self-confidence problems.... They don't have trouble with deadlines. They know how to handle impossible workloads, and don't spin their wheels trying to get started on a project.

Please. Tons of successful law students have these problems. Most do.
posted by naju at 12:21 PM on April 29, 2008 [11 favorites]

This thread, which contains a clear and specific question, should not be a referendum on the poster’s character

You think so because you don't entirely know what you're talking about. The poster, on the other hand, makes it clear that she DOES know that for many (if not all) states there are subjective matters weighed before one is admitted to the bar, and past illegal activity - discovered and not - can impact one's ability to practice law.

Credit issues similarly are a source of trouble, resolved or not. There was an active participant on the Art of Credit forums years ago who had credit problems and was in law school. He was not able to use the full arsenal of options available to the average person in handling those issues and gaining a favorable negotiating position with creditors because of his concerns about what he'd be asked to account for down the road when he petitioned for admittance. Mind you, these were all perfectly legal techniques and if you hired a lawyer to work on your behalf, s/he would use them all to improve your position. Using them himself, however, would have endangered his ability to practice law after spending three years studying it.

Nobody would be doing the questioner any favors by keeping silent and letting her invest three years of law school tuition towards being unable to practice law.
posted by phearlez at 12:36 PM on April 29, 2008

Ask Me isn't a place for the completely uninformed to comment. At least, that's my understanding (and strong preference).

Look at enough "how do i translate this into [foreign language]?" and other language/linguistics threads and you'll realize that a lot of people don't seem to have the same understanding of AskMe that you (and I) do.
posted by oaf at 12:51 PM on April 29, 2008

Successful law students (and successful lawyers) don't have un(der)treated ADHD. They don't have self-confidence problems (if anything, they tend to have arrogance problems). They definitely don't allow false items to stay on their credit report. They don't have trouble with deadlines. They know how to handle impossible workloads, and don't spin their wheels trying to get started on a project.

Bullshit. I have all of these problems (including a false item on my credit report that I can't get rid of -- it has a "notation" now, but I've had to explain it to two different mortgage lenders and provide documentation proving its false). I have totally untreated ADHD (though they called it "being lazy" when I was a kid) and massive self-confidence problems that manifest themselves as procrastination (you can't fail if you weren't really trying!) and trouble dealing with deadlines. Typically I spin my wheels like crazy when trying to start a project, leading to impossible workloads and the aforementioned deadlines. It turns out, by an enormous stroke of luck, that I work well that way.

Despite all that I graduated from a top-ranked law school as an editor of my Law Review in the top 10% of my class and most people would call me a successful lawyer today, though I have to wake up every single morning and convince myself I'm not a fraud.

So I call bullshit.
posted by The Bellman at 2:57 PM on April 29, 2008 [14 favorites]

though I have to wake up every single morning and convince myself I'm not a fraud.

as do very, very many (most?) successful people.
posted by caddis at 3:19 PM on April 29, 2008

ikkyu2's answer should not have been deleted.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:23 PM on April 29, 2008

What did ikkyu2 say?
posted by caddis at 3:30 PM on April 29, 2008

You know, docpops, a lot of people in MeFi in general (and many, many in AskMe) have reading comprehension issues, but you're the first one I've encountered who doesn't seem to understand what they themselves wrote.
posted by signal at 4:40 PM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

"Are they going to let me be a lawyer?" That question is the only question that I read the poster as asking. I do not read the poster as asking, "should I go to law school?

Your judgment appears to be clouded and you're not actually reading the question. From the text of the question: I'm scared that I won't be able to pass the character and fitness part of the bar exam. I don't want to take on the student loan debt for a career that I'm not going to be able to have if I'm not going to be able to have it [emphasis added]

It's clear that the poster is asking for views on whether her past conduct and health issues would affect her chances of getting through character and fitness screening. In the event that she won't pass C&F, the poster says that she doesn't want to take on debt to obtain a useless qualification. If the answer to the question 'will I pass the character and fitness part of the bar exam' is probably not, then, a priori, the answer to ‘should I go to law school’ is no.

The consensus view (to the extent that one exists) in the thread is that, likely yes, the issues she flags could raise a very real risk of not getting though screening. Furthermore that it is difficult to give a definitive answer when the assessment panel will likely take a view in the circumstances of the particular case.

Yes, it is unfair that people's difficult personal circumstances might get in the way of their dreams but it is a fact. No amount of Pollyannaish wishing that it were not so will change that. She was given the truth with compassion by some, without a spoonful of sugar by others.

From the fact that you're still pursuing this I can only conclude that the OP's 'girls like you don't get to do x' framing has pushed one of your buttons and that you've become emotionally invested in this issue.

For what it’s worth, I don’t like (and said as much in the thread) the fact that people who have had a troubled past tend not to get past admissions boards. For the profession to be representative it needs to embrace those with a troubled past who can demonstrate a material change in circumstances. This is the real issue here not supposedly “shitty” responses. Contrary to what you say there is an answer to the question as posed: if the poster gets as far as making a C&F declaration, she’ll get one. She was asking for views on what it might be and she got them.

Bullshit. [snip personal opinion followed by unsubstantiated anecdote] So I call bullshit.

I would want at least five years of successful practice under my belt before I started making assertions about my status as a successful lawyer. Furthermore, attempting to refute a proposition by citing unsubstantiated anecdotal experience is at best poor form. Do not try this is practice.

Please. Tons of successful law students have these problems. Most do.

Most do? Some do, some don’t. But take deadlines as just one of the examples from the sentence you responded to. If you do have trouble with deadlines practice might come as something of a shock. Missing deadlines, particularly where a limitation period kicks in, was traditionally the single biggest cause of complaints to the Law Society. Toxic is quite right when he says that competent lawyers don’t miss deadlines.

if you are telling somebody a door is closed to them, you should give them advice towards how they can find the key to that door.

What if there likely isn't a key to that door? I don't see it as AskMe's function to be supportive; it is a resource that answers questions.

What did ikkyu2 say?

Essentially that from a client point of view he thought that the poster's character should/would preclude her from obtaining certification and that he wouldn't want her as his lawyer.
posted by dmt at 4:43 PM on April 29, 2008

dmt, you say: It's clear that the poster is asking for views on whether her past conduct and health issues would affect her chances of getting through character and fitness screening. ... If the answer to the question 'will I pass the character and fitness part of the bar exam' is probably not, then, a priori, the answer to ‘should I go to law school’ is no.

We are in total agreement on this point. I agree that the poster is concerned with the character & fitness exam and it does seem that her decision to go to law school hinges on her chances of passing it.

What I do NOT think is relevant to the question is whether or not there are other reasons for her to avoid law school. Those people who told her that she should not go to law school because law school is terrible were not answering her question about the character and fitness exam. Those people who told her not to go to law school because they felt she would make a poor law student and a terrible lawyer were not answering her question about the character and fitness exam. Those people who told her that they would never want to hire a lawyer with her history were not answering her question about the character and fitness exam.

You further say: Contrary to what you say there is an answer to the question as posed

If you re-read what I originally wrote when I made this post, you will find that I said this: "There were some answers in the thread that did address the poster's question and seemed very helpful, so this doesn't appear to be one of those times when there simply IS no answer to the question as posed."

So here, too, we agree.
posted by prefpara at 5:00 PM on April 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

Well, she sounds like a fun person to have sex and smoke reefer with.
posted by sixcolors at 5:04 PM on April 29, 2008

And that's truly what matters.
posted by puke & cry at 5:12 PM on April 29, 2008

Nobody would be doing the questioner any favors by keeping silent and letting her invest three years of law school tuition towards being unable to practice law.

Nobody's sodding saying that we should keep silent and not give the asker any reason to doubt their current path; all they're saying is that it would be good if, before people decided it's a good idea if they jump in and tell the poster what to do, they should have a clue what they're talking about. Now, I don't know what ikkyu2's comment said - he's basically a mensch, and I respect him and the work he does in AskMe, so I'll not cast any aspersions - but there's several other people here who are acting like it's some sacred right of theirs to spout off in any asker's direction if they feel they've got an opinion on something.

Just because there's a word you recognise in the question - like "character" - doesn't mean you understand the specific usage of that word in the context in question. Please stop taking the fact that you have a competent grasp of conversational English to be a qualification to answer any question under goddamn sun.
posted by flashboy at 5:15 PM on April 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

Most do? Some do, some don’t. But take deadlines as just one of the examples from the sentence you responded to. If you do have trouble with deadlines practice might come as something of a shock. Missing deadlines, particularly where a limitation period kicks in, was traditionally the single biggest cause of complaints to the Law Society. Toxic is quite right when he says that competent lawyers don’t miss deadlines.

I get what you're saying, but I'm only talking about law students. Self-doubt and procrastination are practically rites of passage in law school, and that includes those who end up doing well academically. (And I take "trouble with deadlines" to mean the struggle to meet them, the panic involved as you get down to the wire, etc. I agree outright missing them consistently would be a problem.)

But anyway, as prefpara's been saying: whether you'll get a good GPA is outside of the scope here. Whether you'll be a good lawyer is outside of the scope here. This question's about C&F.
posted by naju at 5:18 PM on April 29, 2008

Nobody would be doing the questioner any favors by keeping silent and letting her invest three years of law school tuition towards being unable to practice law.

That thing? Should have been italicised in my previous comment. I blame the vodka. Not me.
posted by flashboy at 5:25 PM on April 29, 2008

What did ikkyu2 say?

Essentially that from a client point of view he thought that the poster's character should/would preclude her from obtaining certification and that he wouldn't want her as his lawyer.

He can be pretty judgmental and harsh at times. Sometimes he is right when he pulls this, sometimes not. This kind of judgmentalism only seems appropriate to me when there is little to no chance of being wrong. This is not one of those times. From what anon has said you can not tell whether she would meet the fitness standards. If that stuff is in the past, then she will, if it continues, then perhaps not. It is difficult to say without reading the comment, but it sounds to me as if deletion was appropriate. It did not answer the question and it sounds like it was kind of nasty.
posted by caddis at 5:37 PM on April 29, 2008

...were not answering her question about the character and fitness exam

You're being slightly disingenuous on this point. What offended you appears to be people speaking to issues of character in a thread concerning a process designed to protect the public from those of unsuitable character practicing law. Hence your ‘shouldn’t be a referendum on her character’ comment.

The question was always about her character (and mental health issues) and what an admissions board would make of it. People gave views of varying usefulness. To try and cast your objection, after the fact, as having concerned scope rather than content is, in my view a distortion. You objected to people being 'shitty' not off topic.

That said, I think that you're on the side of the angels so, given that it is almost 2 in the morning, I will bow out at this point agreeing that we agree that there is an answer.

This question's about C&F

C&F is about whether one can be a good lawyer. To try to force a logical disconnect here is obtuse; the admissions board won't. And the questioner was essentially asking us to anticipate their response.
posted by dmt at 5:52 PM on April 29, 2008

Applicant: "I have low self-esteem. I mean, really low."
toxic: "That may be a sign you'll be a poor lawyer."
C&F committee: "Huh? We don't care about your self-esteem. Why did you even mention this?"
posted by naju at 6:34 PM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

The level of detail required for a lawyer to provide competent council to her client is not compatible with insufficiently treated ADHD, unless the sufferer has it completely under control.

I'd really like to know what toxic's experience with ADHD is. Because I'm with The Bellman; toxic doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, but states his/her opinions with lots of authority.

toxic, have you ever been in law school? Or applied to law school?
posted by mediareport at 6:39 PM on April 29, 2008

Just because there's a word you recognise in the question - like "character" - doesn't mean you understand the specific usage of that word in the context in question. Please stop taking the fact that you have a competent grasp of conversational English to be a qualification to answer any question under goddamn sun.

There's a lot of people confusing the meaning of the word "character" in the context of the questioner's post, however they are, for the most part, not the people who are upset that this person got a "don't go to law school" answer.

You are certainly free to think that many of the obstacles and gates a person has to pass through to be a practicing lawyer are wrong and arbitrary - I do - but that doesn't change reality.
posted by phearlez at 8:08 PM on April 29, 2008

Well, she sounds like a fun person to have sex and smoke reefer with.

The fact that there's basically no editing on MeTa doesn't mean you're not a titanic asshole.
posted by nanojath at 8:14 PM on April 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

toxic, have you ever been in law school?

My past includes a pattern of incidents that would prevent me from being barred, for character & fitness reasons.
posted by toxic at 8:28 PM on April 29, 2008

My past includes a pattern of incidents that would prevent me from being barred, for character & fitness reasons.

oh my
posted by caddis at 8:38 PM on April 29, 2008

"My past includes a pattern of incidents that would prevent me from being barred, for character & fitness reasons."

Which brings us back to the original assumption (which I think is absurd, btw).

A number of my law school classmates were admitted to practice with some pretty ridiculous stuff in their pasts, some of them far, far worse than the OP's from that thread.

Frankly, as long as those things are in her past, I can't think of a single reason why she'd be barred from practicing... unless she lied about her past employment on her app and was then caught.
posted by toomuchpete at 8:45 PM on April 29, 2008

prefpara> That's why, toxic, I did not think your answer was a good one. We read the question very differently.

Fair enough. If I'd read it as just a "will I get past C&F" question, I'd have left it at "Your financial disarray presents the biggest of several problems, contact your state's bar to see how big" (which you'll note, answers the question, and was the first part of my objectable answer). But she asked for insight -- and that's where we read the question differently.

Seems a reasonable difference of opinion. It's a shame it's degenerated into this.
posted by toxic at 8:45 PM on April 29, 2008

Toxic, you can't even string together a proper English sentence which means what you want to say, instead of the opposite, so how can you opine on whether someone is qualified to be an attorney?
posted by caddis at 9:06 PM on April 29, 2008

caddis: "barred" The act of being admitted to the bar.

Yes, common usage of "barred from entry" does confuse this.
posted by toxic at 9:14 PM on April 29, 2008

LOL, I have never heard the term "barred" be used to describe being admitted to the bar. You are your own lexicographer, that is for sure. Anyway, you do not seem to know what you are talking about here. It is a bit embarrassing, and certainly insulting to anon.
posted by caddis at 9:21 PM on April 29, 2008

Hi. I'm the OP.

I can assure you that this isn't performance art - I would like to believe that I'm creative enough to have come up with something better if it was. I also don't think my story is all that unbelievable - surely some practicing lawyer somewhere had a child when they were young or stripped their way through undergrad. Unusual, maybe, but not impossible.

I wasn't offended by toxic's comment. I actually think he had me pretty well pegged, and it was food for thought for me. I'm now seriously considering taking a year or so off before I start law school (I wasn't planning to before), because my ADHD isn't as under control right now as I'd like it to be. I can take that time to get better treatment, fix my credit and gain some more solid work experience. My kids aren't getting any younger, and the law isn't going anywhere. I think it would be good for me, because I've come this far and I want to do all I can to succeed.

But I still want to go, if I can. I'm aware of the legal job market and the financial implications of going into public interest law, and I can live with them. I'm pigheaded (as a previous poster said) and I'm committed. I want to be a lawyer to help other teen moms and kids like I was through the legal system, to give back some of the help that others gave me. I know that there are other ways that I could advocate for youth, and if the law doesn't work out I will take one of those paths. But I would like to try. I'll be asking the bar examiners and the people who do know before I do.

This has been an educational experience for me all around, for sure.
posted by badgirlesq at 9:35 PM on April 29, 2008

Thanks for the additional detail, badgirlesq. It sounds like you have a lot of passion for what you want to do. Best of luck.

-------
Now for my petty personal battle. amro, you refer to my comment in saying "And the myth that 'legal (sic) degrees are helpful in getting many jobs' is just that." However, I know one person (of maybe only 6 people I know with law degrees, excuse me) who has not taken the bar but got hired to do law-related things and was chosen over others in large part because of her legal knowledge. So you can say it is just a myth, but I've seen the real thing with my own two eyes. Repent ye unbelievers and believe!

(Now whether one should acquire $100k in debt to become somewhat more competitive for a job that might not require you to have taken on that debt, that's another question.)
posted by salvia at 10:13 PM on April 29, 2008

The sex work's stripping? If that's all it is, I wouldn't sweat that piece too much. One of my best friends in law school stripped in her early twenties, for reasons similar to the ones you mention, and she passed the Colorado C & F without any problems. And she's not the only stripper-turned-attorney I've heard of.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 10:59 PM on April 29, 2008

Stripping = sex work? Not in my world.
posted by dg at 2:20 AM on April 30, 2008

LOL, I have never heard the term "barred" be used to describe being admitted to the bar. You are your own lexicographer, that is for sure.

Without weighing in on the controversy here, I wanted to point out that toxic didn't make that up. People use that all the time. I am barred in Maryland, that is I am a member of the Maryland bar.
posted by Pax at 5:39 AM on April 30, 2008

caddis: "barred" to mean "admitted to the bar" is common usage in every jurisdiction in the US in which I've practiced. (to agree with Pax)
posted by crush-onastick at 6:14 AM on April 30, 2008

languagehat - you are completely correct. It's entirely possible that the Character and Fitness interview for the Bar is an oral challenge of one's knowledge of cinematic portrayals of villainy and heroism followed by a fifty yard dash and timed jumping jacks, just as it was the three times I had them for medical training. I stand chastened and humbled.

Are you, like, stupid or something? Because that seems like such a dumb thing to say. What languagehat says makes sense: Only people with actual knowledge of who does and does not pass Bar standards can answer the question, simply coming up with value judgments about someone character, without being able to compare that character to people who do and do not pass the Bar is useless.
posted by delmoi at 6:25 AM on April 30, 2008

dmt (about me): I would want at least five years of successful practice under my belt before I started making assertions about my status as a successful lawyer. Furthermore, attempting to refute a proposition by citing unsubstantiated anecdotal experience is at best poor form. Do not try this is practice.

Leaving aside what "you would want" (who cares?), and without making this anymore about me than it already is, I have to respond that I've been a practicing lawyer for 15 years, so I don't know what that's about. As for whether it's successful or not, well, my real name's in my profile, so before you decide to snipe at me feel free to Google me. You'll find plenty of real ammo. Finally, of course this is a personal anecdote; toxic made a blanket statement about the attributes of "successful law students (and successful lawyers)" and I responded with my experience, which is to the contrary. I don't have anything but my experience to draw from, but I don't see how that's not a relevant data point. Of course it isn't relevant to whether the OP's past would matter to the NC Character and Fitness committee -- I don't know whether it would or not as I'm in New York -- which is why I didn't post in the original thread.
posted by The Bellman at 7:11 AM on April 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

Only people with actual knowledge of who does and does not pass Bar standards can answer the question.

Agreed. But then again, this is AskMe where I could create a user ID, fill my profile with all sorts of lawyer-y cred and the start spouting marginally real sounding advice. Who here would question me? I could just pull the "Hey, I'm a lawyer and I know what I'm talking about" trump card and all would be good.

I think the AskMe that you and/or languagehat envision is admirable and would encourage you to continue to fight the good fight. On the other hand, I think your declarations about what AskMe should be are slightly askew.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:58 AM on April 30, 2008

I want to be a lawyer to help other teen moms and kids like I was through the legal system, to give back some of the help that others gave me.

Good for you. When you are looking into law schools you might inquire about programs with loan forgiveness for graduates who go into public service.
posted by caddis at 8:01 AM on April 30, 2008

Stripping = sex work? Not in my world.

Per Wikipedia:

Sex worker is an umbrella term that refers to any person who works in the sex industry. Sex workers may be employed as prostitutes, strippers, go-go dancers, burlesque performers, escorts, dominatrices, peepshow workers, phone sex operators, hustlers, foot fetish models, brothel workers, or porn stars among other things. Some sex workers are paid to engage in sex acts which involve varying degrees of physical contact with clients. Other sex workers are paid to engage in live sexual performance, such as cam whores and phone sex. Still others are paid merely to be companions. The term does not typically refer to sex industry management.
posted by streetdreams at 8:04 AM on April 30, 2008

Per Wikipedia

Well then.
posted by ODiV at 8:21 AM on April 30, 2008

LOL, I have never heard the term "barred" be used to describe being admitted to the bar

And yet, I'm the one that doesn't know anything.
posted by toxic at 9:25 AM on April 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

This is the first time I've ever really thoroughly disagreed with a mod's deletion of my comment. I spent a good deal of effort trying to express myself as clearly and as helpfully as I could, offering a perspective that, as a recent customer of lawyers and as a member of a boarded profession myself, I thought might be useful.

That perspective was deleted, because, as near as I can tell, it might have been contrary to what the poster wanted to hear.

What is the point of an AskMe where anything the poster might not want to hear gets deleted? Why not just let the poster answer the question herself and mark her own answer best, in all cases? Is AskMe about the real world, or are we to begin each answer with the presupposition that we live in fairy pony unicorn-land?
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:30 AM on April 30, 2008

Umm...am I *really* the only one noting the striking similarities in the AskMe questions content with similar threads started by our very own un_owen? I noted that someone made a mention in the original AskMe, but have to say I'm surprised there have been no comments in this MeTa. I mean, general voice, style...it's all ringing creepy bells for me. The username was created today, and in the usual fashion, the user appears midway through the thread to address all questions. This is usually phrased in the self-deprecatory style so beloved by un_owen along with the vow to give back to the community after so many years of trying times. Not to mention the sexually-connotative username, the mention of a previous sexual career...

Sorry, I couldn't keep it to myself.
posted by nonmerci at 9:35 AM on April 30, 2008 [3 favorites]

nonmerci, I can't figure out what you're talking about. Was it just deleted or something? Please clarify.
posted by salvia at 10:06 AM on April 30, 2008

Salvia: No underbar.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 10:24 AM on April 30, 2008

I'm not unowen. Sorry to disappoint.

ikkyu2, you made some pretty serious assumptions in your comment that offended me. There were other people who told me blunt things that I didn't want to hear that didn't. I can live with being called disorganized and irresponsible, and the things that other folks said, but you told me that I "had a consistent pattern of disrespect for the law when it stands in the way of my own personal gain," and I don't think that's true at all. By doing civil disobedience? By stripping (which is perfectly legal where I live, whatever you may think of it)? By stealing food from a grocery store in a stupid, desperate moment when I was a homeless, pregnant teenager? By not being able to afford to pay my medical bills? I made some bad decisions when I was young that I will always have to live with the impact of, but I'm not what you seem to think I am. I'm pushing thirty now, I'm a happily married and housed (if slightly disorganized) mom, and I haven't been in legal trouble in years. If you do background checks on all of your lawyers (do you?) and wouldn't want to hire me, fine. But I'm not an Enron executive or an otherwise horrible human being.

I'm feeling better and more clear about all of this than I was before, in any case.
posted by badgirlesq at 10:34 AM on April 30, 2008 [3 favorites]

The fact that there's basically no editing on MeTa doesn't mean you're not a titanic asshole.

Huh??? I don't know if she would make a good lawyer or not, I don't know her. But she seems like a fun person to hang out with.
posted by sixcolors at 10:55 AM on April 30, 2008

ikkyu2, I had two problems with that you posted. First, I think your post was not an answer to the question as posed and did not contribute the kind of information that would help the original poster, and thus I felt that it violated the AskMe guidelines. Second, it made me angry because I felt that you were jumping to conclusions, making bad assumptions, and saying very negative and hurtful things for which I saw no real basis. Because it made me angry, I called it out as being against the guidelines. Because I was aware that I was responding with some emotion, I wanted to check in with the other members of this community by posting this in MeTa to see if more cool-headed people might explain to me why I was overreacting or misunderstanding things. Having read what everyone else has written in this thread, I remain convinced that what you wrote was not a good or an appropriate answer.

I just want to be clear about all of that, because you seem to think that the main objection to what you wrote was that it wasn't what the poster wanted to hear.
posted by prefpara at 11:23 AM on April 30, 2008

(7th word should have been "what")
posted by prefpara at 11:26 AM on April 30, 2008

Well then.

I think the Government of Canada also considers strippers to be sex workers. Or at least the Tories do.
posted by oaf at 11:39 AM on April 30, 2008

What is the point of an AskMe where anything the poster might not want to hear gets deleted? Why not just let the poster answer the question herself and mark her own answer best, in all cases? Is AskMe about the real world, or are we to begin each answer with the presupposition that we live in fairy pony unicorn-land?

ikkyu2, you are one of my favorite posters here. That said, it's my impression that when you are having a bad day elsewhere, that bad day leaks on to MetaFilter.

I have seen you give helpful advice, I have seen you give helpful tough-love type advice, and I have seen you give cranky vented spleen lectures with a side of advice that, for any other poster, would contain enough vitriol to equal a speedy deletion here. We'll often err on the side of leaving your comments because the quality of your advice is generally so good, and your knowledge and willingness to share it is so admirable. However, it's a big community and you are a popular member, so there are consequences whether we remove your comments (hey I wanted to read what ikkyu2 had to say!) or leave them (hey you're playing favorites, with any other person that would have been deleted!) so we tread carefully.

This time we chose to remove the comment, in fact I'm pretty sure I did it.

are we to begin each answer with the presupposition that we live in fairy pony unicorn-land?

And my response would be that are we to begin each answer with the suppossition that as long as what we are saying is true, that it doesn't matter how we phrase it or what care we take to see that our message is not just accurate but that it actually communicates something?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:11 PM on April 30, 2008

Languagehat said it as clearly as it needed to be said. This was a question about the character and fitness standards for practicing law. Though the expertise in answering this question may be rare, and the most informed answer ambiguous, it is, nevertheless, a question with available factual answers by those who have expertise. Anyone else who is speculating upon what the answer might be, including those who think (but do not know) that their own C&F hurdles in other professions might be similar, are just providing uninformed nonsense. In many cases, faux authoritatively. And in some cases, doing so with needless insensitivity and reckless judgmentalism. Ignorance and insensitivity are damn good reasons for deletion. Sadly, whining about it is an embarrassment from someone who often complains about ill-informed answers elsewhere.
posted by Dances with Werewolves at 1:39 PM on April 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

streetdreams: "Stripping = sex work? Not in my world.
Per Wikipedia:"

Well, then I disagree with Wikipedia. Perhaps it's a fine line, but it seems to me that forming a direct connection between stripping and sex work is just plain wrong. To continue that association, this would mean that admiring a pretty girl is akin to having sex with her. Yes, I do understand that there are often links between the stripping and prostitution occupations.
posted by dg at 2:02 PM on April 30, 2008

I'm not unowen. Sorry to disappoint.

I am kind of disappointed, to be frank. Stylistically and fact pattern-wise, it seemed to fit. Oh well.
posted by norm at 2:23 PM on April 30, 2008

I have to respond that I've been a practicing lawyer for 15 years, so I don't know what that's about. [continues]

Bully for you. It's not apparent from your comment which did not make that clear. Rather you appeared to be trying to imply that your law school achievements were what made you a successful lawyer. I'll judge you on what you say; I shouldn't be forced to parse your comments through the prism of information on your user information page.

I don't have anything but my experience to draw from, but I don't see how that's not a relevant data point

It's a relevant data point but not, in and of itself, sufficient to refute the assertion made which, rhetorically, you tried to do. I called you on it.

In point of fact the original assertion was a prior, unsubstantiated opinion. You responded in kind. As with Russell's teapot the first assertion should have required proof. It chimed with my experience so I was inclined to let that slide; you called him on it. Shall we agree to disagree?

It isn't relevant to whether the OP's past would matter to the NC Character and Fitness committee -- I don't know whether it would or not as I'm in New York -- which is why I didn't post in the original thread.

No one but a current member of the NC C&F committee could give a definitive answer. By the time that they do so, for the poster it would have been too late. The poster was asking us to extrapolate from similar experience to general principles. Note that it was not specified in the post which state she was in. Shame you didn't contribute as your perspective would have been helpful.

Anyway, enough squabbling. Fascinating looking firm that you've set up there. London doesn't have nearly enough niche litigation powerhouses. No doubt in 10 years we'll have followed where NY has led. Certainly, the clients hate the fact that it's next to impossible to get really first class representation to sue a clearing bank as all the big boys are conflicted out.
posted by dmt at 2:24 PM on April 30, 2008

toxic, have you ever been in law school?

My past includes a pattern of incidents that would prevent me from being barred, for character & fitness reasons.

So it's settled: you know nothing about ADHD and you have no experience with law school applications or character fitness tests.

Um, so, what the fuck were you doing answering that question again?
posted by mediareport at 8:31 PM on April 30, 2008

Um, so, what the fuck were you doing answering that question again?

According to the original poster, I was offering worthwhile food for thought.

And my relationship with ADD is none of your fucking business.
posted by toxic at 9:10 PM on April 30, 2008

"had a consistent pattern of disrespect for the law when it stands in the way of your own personal gain"

This doesn't prevent you from being a lawyer, to be fair. Unless, that is, it's manifested itself in arrest and conviction.
posted by spaltavian at 11:19 PM on April 30, 2008

I assumed sex work meant illegal prostitution, badgirlesq. Legal stripping is something else again. A lot of law and med students do that; it's hardly even unusual.

Mea culpa. Jessamyn gets it right again, which certainly isn't a surprise.

For what it's worth, I was having a good day when I posted that answer. I tried to be helpful, and I really stopped and thought "Is this going to fly?" before I posted it. I've dropped about $10K on legal work in the last 4 months; the good character and respect for the details and the letter of the law that my lawyers exhibited was extremely valuable to me, and it's been a learning experience.

I don't actually believe ADD or ADHD exist as unitary entities, syndromes, or observable phenomena; interpreting someone's diagnosis of ADD is therefore always a little problematic for me, and as a neurologist it comes up pretty frequently. What does it really mean? Does it mean you like the way methyphenidate makes you feel? Well, that isn't very unusual either. Does it mean you enjoy acting out antisocial behavior? Does it mean that you can't concentrate or pay attention like others can? Does it mean you're moderately mentally retarded? I've seen that diagnosis used to denote each of the above as well as many different things.

Someone with a severe inability to concentrate or pay close attention to details wanting to become a lawyer seems a little bit to me like a man with no hands wanting to become a piano player. Sure, you could overcome with great effort, but why not do something where having no hands isn't a major handicap, instead?

Sorry if I offended, badgirlesq. Wasn't my intent.

Things you could do with no hands: translator, voice actor, psychotherapist, MeFi moderator
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:26 PM on April 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

I don't actually believe ADD or ADHD exist as unitary entities, syndromes, or observable phenomena; interpreting someone's diagnosis of ADD is therefore always a little problematic for me, and as a neurologist it comes up pretty frequently. What does it really mean? Does it mean you like the way methyphenidate makes you feel? Well, that isn't very unusual either. Does it mean you enjoy acting out antisocial behavior? Does it mean that you can't concentrate or pay attention like others can? Does it mean you're moderately mentally retarded? I've seen that diagnosis used to denote each of the above as well as many different things.

Someone with a severe inability to concentrate or pay close attention to details wanting to become a lawyer seems a little bit to me like a man with no hands wanting to become a piano player. Sure, you could overcome with great effort, but why not do something where having no hands isn't a major handicap, instead?

Do not even believe in the condition.....There is the source of your judgmentalism. You think people with ADHD are retards. Nice. Frankly, you are not qualified to comment here, medical degree, specialty, or whatever; you are too prejudiced as regards this issue.
posted by caddis at 5:08 AM on May 1, 2008

Do not even believe in the condition.....There is the source of your judgmentalism. You think people with ADHD are retards. Nice. Frankly, you are not qualified to comment here, medical degree, specialty, or whatever; you are too prejudiced as regards this issue.

Quite aside from your rank misreading of ikkyu2's comment about ADD & ADHD, your comment makes me wonder what you think the proper criteria are for commenting on AskMe. It seems that expertise is not either adequate or sufficient. I have no idea what your experience, caddis, is with ADHD, but ikkyu2's position on it as articulated above is widely shared among psychiatrists and neurologists with whom I've spoken, so it isn't a radical position to take. (That you don't know that might, under different circumstances, disqualify you from commenting on ADHD.)

Is agreement with your view of the world the primary determinant of whether or not someone should be able to comment?
posted by OmieWise at 5:34 AM on May 1, 2008

And my relationship with ADD is none of your fucking business.

Great, fine. The general rule still stands: Try staying out of questions you don't know anything about. Rule 2 is still pretty good, too: Try not to be so fucking certain when you don't know what you're talking about.
posted by mediareport at 6:03 AM on May 1, 2008

wow, caddis, way to misread what ikkyu2 said, which was "I've seen the diagnosis applied to moderate mental retardation." not "ADD is code for your being a retard." What you've typed is considerably more offensive and knee-jerk than what ikkyu2 did.
posted by crush-onastick at 6:06 AM on May 1, 2008

I objected to the ikkyu2 comment deletion because his was the only one I saw that answered the question from the point of view of a potential client and I thought that perspective was interesting and valuable. His comment wasn't even as mean as you would think. (caddis, however, seems to be able to pass judgement and characterize it without even having read it: neat trick!)
Ultimately though, I have to agree the only people who should really have answered that question were those familiar with the bar's character and fitness standards.

I'm not unowen. Sorry to disappoint.

Bummer.

Hmmmm. Then again, that's JUST what unowen would say!
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:48 AM on May 1, 2008

I think that we can all agree that only ADHD-afflicted debt-ridden single-mom stripper-lawyers are the only people who get to say anything in that thread, or this one, or, frankly, anywhere.
posted by Skot at 10:19 AM on May 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

I don't actually believe ADD or ADHD exist as unitary entities, syndromes, or observable phenomena; interpreting someone's diagnosis of ADD is therefore always a little problematic for me ...
And there would be many people, who see parents shopping their brats around until they find a doctor who will drop one of those diagnoses and a prescription on them, when the heart of the problem is lack of interest in the hard parts of parenting, who would agree with you.

not meaning to downplay the difficulty of managing genuine special-needs children in any way
posted by dg at 1:52 PM on May 1, 2008

dmt: I would want at least five years of successful practice under my belt before I started making assertions about my status as a successful lawyer. Furthermore, attempting to refute a proposition by citing unsubstantiated anecdotal experience is at best poor form. Do not try this is practice.

The proposition is: "graduates of law school do not have untreated ADD." Another one is: "people admitted to the bar do not have ADD." This is a blanket statement about an entire segment of society. Therefore, while "there is a graduate of law school, who has been admitted to the bar, who has untreated ADD" is certainly a piece of anecdotal evidence (by the way, 'anecdotal experience' seems awkwardly redundant), it still refutes the proposition. In the same way, anecdotal evidence like "I know a black person who's stupid" does not prove the proposition that "black people are stupid; yet "I know a black person who's smart" does indeed disprove the proposition that "all black people are stupid."

Also, assuming you meant to say "do not try this in practice," I do believe that you've just demonstrated fairly well that a lawyer can usually say anything, whether it's actually rational or not, and get away with it so long as he makes it sound rational. My experience is that many lawyers have learned the knack of sounding like they make sense and like they know what they're talking about, whereas only the truly great lawyers are masters of what making sense means and are quick enough to understand the subtlety that this entails.
posted by Viomeda at 3:31 PM on May 1, 2008

ikkyu2: I don't actually believe ADD or ADHD exist as unitary entities, syndromes, or observable phenomena; interpreting someone's diagnosis of ADD is therefore always a little problematic for me, and as a neurologist it comes up pretty frequently. What does it really mean? Does it mean you like the way methyphenidate makes you feel? Well, that isn't very unusual either. Does it mean you enjoy acting out antisocial behavior? Does it mean that you can't concentrate or pay attention like others can? Does it mean you're moderately mentally retarded? I've seen that diagnosis used to denote each of the above as well as many different things.

Someone with a severe inability to concentrate or pay close attention to details wanting to become a lawyer seems a little bit to me like a man with no hands wanting to become a piano player. Sure, you could overcome with great effort, but why not do something where having no hands isn't a major handicap, instead?

I'm sure you've already seen it, but DSM-IV is pretty precise about this:

Either (1) or (2):

(1) Six (or more) of the following symptoms of inattention have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:

Inattention
1. often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
2. often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities
3. often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly
4. often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions)
5. often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
6. often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or homework)
7. often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
8. is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
9. is often forgetful in daily activities

(2) Six (or more) of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:

Hyperactivity
1. often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat
2. often leaves seat in classroom or in other situations in which remaining seated is expected
3. often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, maybe limited to subjective feelings of restlessness)
4. often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly
5. is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor"
6. often talks excessively

Impulsivity
7. often blurts out answers before questions have been completed
8. often has difficulty awaiting turn
9. often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games)

I only mention DSM-IV because it's actually a lot more precise than it may seem to the layperson-- a lot of those terms have real meanings defined elsewhere in DSM-IV, such as "maladaptive" and "developmental level," and because it's a good description. While it may seem very vague in common parlance, it is, in my personal experience of it (as someone with an adult ADD) very real and very specific. People who have ADD speak of common and very particular experiences-- putting off homework until the last minute on every single assignment we were ever given in school, for example, or constantly switching topics of conversation as a lifelong habit that friends learn to deal with, or forgetting things that are important, such as rent checks or student loan payments, and letting small things forgotten (a pencil) prevent us from accomplishing big things (a master's thesis)-- and it is often an experience of great surprise and some comfort when an undiagnosed ADD person meets someone else with ADD: "you're just like me! And I thought I was the only one who did these stupid little things-- you do them exactly the same way, over and over, just like I do!"

In the same way that everyone feels sad, but not everyone is clinically depressed, everyone feels scattered and disorganized, but not everyone is ADD. In fact, they're both things that I believe are often overdiagnosed, or referred to in a very careless way in common parlance and even by professionals in the field. On the ground, however, they both seem very real to me.

I say all this, not to lecture you, but because I'm a little surprised. I've read a lot of your answers, and have a lot of respect for your opinion as a neurologist. You say that you "don't actually believe" that these things exist "as unitary entities, syndromes, or observable phenomena;" what do you mean by this? Do you mean that psychological diagnoses are inherently vague and somewhat non-objective? I have a feeling you don't mean that, or you would have said something to that effect, and it would have a certain amount of effect on your practice of neurology, I imagine, if you believed that psychology wasn't a science. Your technical language leads me to believe that you actually take issue with DSM-IV and the psychological establishment on this, and believe that ADD is something of a faddish diagnosis.

All of this is, I guess, just a rambling way of asking: what do you think, and why? I'd like to know. Really. I've got my perspective, of course, but I'm no neurologist. What's more, it seems like a complicated issue to me. If you think it's a fraud perpetrated by a psychology establishment intent on making more money (and I wouldn't put it past them), then what is it really- is it the inherent injustice and malformation of the complexity of the modern world that makes children and adults suffer like this? If so, what do we do about it?

Sorry. That's kind of huge. I'm only wondering.
posted by Viomeda at 4:08 PM on May 1, 2008

Viomeda--Leaving aside for the moment the extensive research on the poor validity and reliability of hte DSM-IV, my patients (I'm a psychotherapist licensed to diagnose) with either mood disorders or addictions all exhibit almost all of those symptoms. (The climbing symptom of hyperactivity, not so much.) So, I'm not sure what you mean by the DSM being "precise about this."
posted by OmieWise at 4:41 PM on May 1, 2008

viomeda - of the forty or so people I see with diagnoses of ADD by reliable clinical psychologists, I'd say at most five are people who really seem to reliably have some sort of attention issue without a correlating issue like they were raised incredibly badly. That is, when you put them on a stimulant they calm down, focus, and thrive in school. The rest come from screwed up families, or were weaned on television to such an extent that they have the attention span of a caffeinated gerbil. Throw in schools that are overburdened and underfunded and failure is a certainty. For every person with real ADD (whatever it may turn out to be), four more need new childhoods.
posted by docpops at 8:37 PM on May 1, 2008

Viomeda, as you surmised, I am well aware of the guideline you transcribed.

I find it to be one of the most flexible, subjective, interpretable-in-every-way guidelines that I have ever seen. Let's just take an example:

1. often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat

How often is often? Once a year? Once an hour? Once a minute? Ten times or more a minute? Enough that the teacher notices? What if he wears bright clothing and the teacher notices his movements more? What if he has atopic eczema and his hands itch? Does the scratching satisfy the guideline? Is there any way to possibly justify "satisfying" this guideline other than "I'm the doctor and I said so?"
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:28 PM on May 1, 2008

So when a patient comes in thinking that they might have ADD or ADHD do you tell them that they must be retarded or just a hypochondriac, or do you take their concerns seriously? Frankly, you are sounding like Tom Cruise to me right now.
posted by caddis at 9:58 PM on May 1, 2008

No patient is ever allowed to bring another physician's diagnosis or syndrome into the examining room with me. If I accept another physician's diagnosis unquestioned, what is the point of having me do my consultation? What could I add?

My patients of course may bring their concerns, symptoms, signs, and complaints to me, and I will do my best to understand them and figure out an effective treatment.

I don't object to Tom Cruise in the slightest. He's way better looking than I am, though.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:02 PM on May 1, 2008

1. often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat
Show me a 5 year-old boy who doesn't exhibit this symptom and I'll show you a sick child. The same goes for many of the symptoms. While I do understand that the diagnosis is intended to use a certain combination of symptoms, most of theme are typical of kids, particularly boys. Fuck, I exhibit half of them at 46.

No, I'm not trying to be glib and clever and yes, I understand that diagnosis of a medical condition is not that simple (and I'm not a doctor, so who am I to talk anyway). I see kids all the time who have been medicated mainly to stop them interrupting mum's TV viewing, not because of any real medical need.

Then we (society) wonder why kids can't deal with life.
posted by dg at 10:05 PM on May 1, 2008

Caddis, man, it occurs to me that maybe you have ADD, or think you do, because you seem to have had trouble understanding what I said. I don't think that everyone labeled as ADD is retarded. However, I've seen kids mislabeled with ADD when the appropriate diagnosis would have been 'mental retardation'. I've seen people mislabeled with ADD when the appropriate diagnosis would have been {a whole host of other things}. And I guess I just don't know what ADD could be.

I'd very much like a machine I could put a patient in and it spits out an answer: "Has ADD" or "Does not have ADD." That would go a long way to moderating my skepticism about that diagnosis. I will guarantee you that no machine will ever be built that can do that, as long as the current diagnostic guidelines/criteria are accepted as the definition of what ADD is.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:06 PM on May 1, 2008

Viomeda, some of your other questions are hard questions. Psychiatry is obviously the least advanced of all the medical disciplines - at least that's obvious to me. When constructing a nosology - a classification of disease - I want a nosology that allows me to group like patients together for the purpose of being able to study them as fellow-sufferers of a unitary disease entity.

Koch's postulates accomplished this for the field of infectious disease. If Joe Blow has a skin infection with Strep. pyogenes serotype A, and Jim Doakes also has a Strep. pyogenes serotype A skin abscess, I expect their diseases to progress the same way, respond to the same antibiotics, have the same prognosis for cure and for scarring, and et cetera.

I feel that the group of people labeled ADD or ADHD are so heterogenous in contrast to the above example that it will never be possible to determine what factors they have in common, what the prognosis or progession of their problems will be, or what common treatment might be expected to work for all of them. That's bad nosology and that's basically what I don't approve of.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:13 PM on May 1, 2008

I hate to put words in your mouth, so this is just pontification, but really ikkyu2 it seems like you look at ADD like global warming deniers look at global warming. The science is a bit fuzzy and without a hard core, absolute proof of this controversial thing, then it is more than just suspect.

As for me, I do not believe I have this issue. I think my desire to waste copious amounts of time on this website are like yours, I like my job, but I don't love it so much that an intellectual distraction like MeFi is not out of the picture on an average day. It's pretty amazing how a few minutes here and there can be productive here, and relaxing there.

I do, however, know some folk who really suffer from ADD. They are helped by their drugs, Concerta, in measures too significant to ignore, and the clinical studies for these drugs are very, very strong. Your blanket denial of their issues rings untrue to me.

There are deniers, but the weight of evidence is against them, degree, or no. It is not black or white so I would very much respect your opinion that this is not a real disease, except that in the face of the fairly overwhelming opinion to the contrary to state to someone that they are just somehow retarded or flawed if they claim this is not OK.

So, we all get distracted, etc. but these folk with ADD/ADHD they get distracted far more than your average bear. However, some of them, many of them, are really quite high in intelligence. They can achieve great things. They just do it in shorter bursts. Your intimation that this "inferior" thinking is appropriate as a MeFi mod, but not a lawyer, is really quite insulting.
posted by caddis at 10:51 PM on May 1, 2008

Caddis, you are really not paying very close attention today. I said that a person could moderate MeFi with no hands.

If I hadn't read many thousands of your comments over the years, I'd think maybe you were trying to troll me.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:20 PM on May 1, 2008

I do, however, know some folk who really suffer from ADD. They are helped by their drugs, Concerta, in measures too significant to ignore, and the clinical studies for these drugs are very, very strong.

caddis-It sounds as if you're using a response to medications as evidence that a unitary disease state exists. Surely this is faulty logic, although I'll agree that it's too often psychiatric (or at least lay psychiatric) logic.

As Paul McHugh (former, very well respected, Chair of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins) has often said, "Everybody does better on a little bit of speed." The studies support his contention. As do the extensive recent admissions about the career changing use of ADHD medications by Professors who do not have ADHD.
posted by OmieWise at 4:40 AM on May 2, 2008

caddis - some of the disagreement between you and ikkyu2 may be a case of your sample exposure. I'm guessing, maybe incorrectly, that if one of your peers is on a stimulant, it's reasonable to expect that he or she, like you appear, is pretty bright and shares some qualities you do as well, hence they are part of your circle of peers, if that makes sense. I would agree that these people, as you mentioned in your last post, seem to validate the diagnosis of ADD, whatever that may turn out to be, i.e. a pathologic inability to attend to tasks such that it compromises daily life.

Ikkyu and I don't sample from the same pool. I'm guessing he sees, as a consultant, plenty of the same things I do in primary care: people on stimulants that on closer inspection have a raft of much more challenging, if not insoluble, obstacles to fully functional existence. As ikkyu pointed out, some of these people are likely suffering from mild MRDD. That's not inflammatory - it's completely true and I see it as well.

It's sort of analogous, imo, to hypertension. There are people who are overweight and sedentary that need four drugs to control their blood pressure. They have hypertension, but really just suffer from personal circumstances that they allow to prevent them from taking care of themselves. The next guy is a runner and fit and follows a vegan diet and still needs meds for his blood pressure. That guy is a pretty well-distilled physiologic example of what hypertension is. I think the same analogy holds up pretty well with depression as well.
posted by docpops at 7:10 AM on May 2, 2008

Well, ikkyu2, I think it's safe to say that I would want you as my doctor about as much as you would want me as your lawyer.
posted by badgirlesq at 12:33 PM on May 2, 2008

Just as the population is slowly learning that they can't just tell people suffering from clinical depression that they need to snap out of it and be happy because they're not really sick, we're also slowly learning more about people suffering from ADD and ADHD. Most doctors will tell you that the medical profession is still learning about such diagnoses. And that they may change within the next decade, as well how they're treated - there's the possibility something else may be going on which may require a different diagnosis. I have several family members of varying generations that have ADD - with some "mild" learning disabilities like dyslexia - and it has been suggested that I have a form of ADD myself (meaning we could make the case for whatever it is being inherited). Trust me, there's definitely something going on - for every badly behaved child you see in public there's a case of a family legitimately trying to figure out what's going on with the behavior of their child or adult family member. It's not all a scam or looking for an excuse to whine or get happy meds (which often don't work, I should add) or have a special way to take tests in school. If it were that simple there are many people who'd have a much easier time in life, as the problem doesn't magically disappear. There are a lot of tests the children have to go through to complete a full diagnosis, and some of these have to be given over time. Medication is often given to children while the diagnosis is being made simply so they can actually attend classes and not end up daily in a principal's office due to disturbing the entire class (and thus depriving others of their educational time). It can take a long time to figure out what's wrong, and it's not any fun for anyone. Trust me, if they could be given a different diagnosis, be given a clue what to do to change things, those parents would be happy to take their kids off medicine and do things differently - as long as it would have some positive result for the child.
Just sayin.

Also interesting, I note that no one mentioned anything in the thread about the difficulties of getting into grad school in the first place - having the grades and the test scores comes first before you can even get to the point of acceptance. Seeing as the poster didn't even mention this she must feel certain that she's found a school she can get in. If she can pass that major hurdle than she's obviously got a lot more going for her than many of the critics seem to think. Meanwhile I still stand by my comment that the largest hurdle is the money - grad school is incredibly expensive (and tuition never includes huge book buying expenses) and will put people into loans that may have them in debt for decades, and thus isn't something a family member enters into lightly. (As I think the poster already knows, I should add.)
posted by batgrlHG at 2:58 PM on May 2, 2008

Also interesting, I note that no one mentioned anything in the thread about the difficulties of getting into grad school in the first place - having the grades and the test scores comes first before you can even get to the point of acceptance.

Getting into grad school and having untreated ADD are pretty incompatible. I won't say it never happens (and the number of people in grad school who get ADD diagnoses is certainly high), but scroll up and read the diagnostic criteria for ADD again and ask yourself if the criteria describe someone who can succeed in school well enough to get into grad school. Just sayin'.
posted by OmieWise at 4:28 PM on May 2, 2008