始终不自信自己的性格和能力适合读法律。。。
你们觉得 要读法律 至少在性格上应该有哪些特点呢？（比如说是不是要很理智 很自信什么的？）
能力上又有什么要求？（这里是说去读法律之前 能力上至少应该达到怎样的程度~ 比如逻辑思维能力啊 观察能力啊）有哪些能力是可以经过三年的学习达到要求的？
另外 已经在美国读或者读过法律的前辈们 可不可以说一说这三年里你们觉得自己在各个方面有什么样的改变呢？（我听过两个现在已经在美国作律师的前辈 都说读法律让他们从一个不自信、shy的人 变成了一个自信的人）
呃。。。原谅我说话比较不像日常用语。。。心理学读久了看人都是这样的。。。
哈
先谢谢大家回帖啊~~ 新人发贴 甚是忐忑的说
很好的问题，我帮你顶！
同问各位前辈，恳请赐教。
最重要的是要有自信心,有毅力,加上英语水平,特别是读写能力.
如果有人只因为你是中国人而当你是弱智,不要在乎.
Yankees!!!
也不想想我们用第二语言考的LSAT,和他们差不多的分数(甚至更高),进同等级的学校!
居然敢瞧不起我们...
一旦进了同等的学校,中国人的成绩一般都在中上游.
但是中国人普遍口语不如老美,所以常遭到歧视.原因未必是种族主义
-试想如果同在北京上海名牌大学读书,大城市出身的难道对农村口音浓重的同学没有歧视? 即使这些"土包子"成绩比这些"城里人"出色.
恩恩 以前和一个现在在那边作律师的阿姨聊天 她说她作了律师这么多年 到现在还在上口语校正班~~ 我们的英语阿~~~ 现在准备考试 有没有口语课 把听说都落下了
大家还在练习口语吗？ （非英语专业的~~~ 英语专业的人应该没有什么问题吧）
在别的论坛上 一位网友给的网址 我转贴过来：
“建议 http://www.chinahrd.net/renliziyuan_yjh/qu_MBTI.asp
进去测试一下就知道了，可以透露的是，最适合读法律的性格应该是ENTP和ENTJ, 其他的NT性格也可以的，但不是最好。”
Irena must have had bad experience in US.
Dont know what qualifies as requirements for a lawer. Lawer typically sits behind desk and research whole day and trying to find holes in the case. I think the work is very methodical. It's not the most exciting job in the world. It's a very stressful job. If you think you have the qualities to excel in this kind of job, then I guess you are made to be a lawer.
Haha...not necessarily bad experience, just a realistic experience.
Are you in law school, fredshen? If so, what's your experience? I would like to hear.
dr_green is correct. ENTJ and ENTP are suitable types for lawyers. INTJ and INTP are good, too. By the way, all 4 types are relatively rare in general population, but quite high in lawyers.
I am an ENTJ myself.
No I am not in law school, thinking about it though. That's why I am here.
There are many Chinese professors in university here with very thick accent, but still well respected by collegues and students. Generally I think US is much more open to new comers than most of the other coutries. Of course, I am not saying there isnt discrimination or sterotype towards certain race in the states. As matter of fact, US has a long history of shameful wrong-doing's towards minorities. Overall, it's getting better and better recently. It's a immigrant country after all, be open to be part of it. The feeling is different.
I dont know if personality test is accurate to test wether a person can be a lawyer. It over-simpliies qualities and is based on assumption one's unchangeable desposition is more overwhelming than changable personality. One thing I am pretty sure of is ask youself what's your goal. What do you want to achieve? Financial success along? If so, therey are many other routes that might get you there. For me, I have multiple reasons, one of them is that the ability of lawers that can change things in this leagal society. I want to be part of it.
Personality tests are not perfect, but very useful tools.
I have known people who took variations of the same test over the span of 10 years, and got very consistant results.
Most of my close friends tend to be certain types - which is no coincedence, since I tend to make friends with whom I share a lot in common.
I think your statement about racism in the U.S. is "Politically Correct," but inconclusive.
Racism is a bigger problem in law school than in other fields in the U.S., and it takes on subtle forms. I have done plenty of other things in the U.S. before law school, and I believe my English abilities are fine. However, law school is still a tough transition because people assume Chinese are less intelligent in law school. This assuption does NOT happen in most other schools, such as engineering, business, science, etc.
Please do not be shocked once you are finally in law school. I wish somebody has told me that before.
You have to be sure to say that there is general discrimination towards Chinese in law school not just simply based on your personal experience. Your statements were pretty extreme to my liking. I have friends in law school too, Asian Americans, people from China, top law schools. I hardly heard them mention it. Never denying there is racism. It's just human nature. It's sure tough to be minority in this country, or probably anywhere else. The day you decide to come to this country, you have already signed up for this crap. What I said is not just political cortect. Why would I care about being politcally correct. If someone says you cannot improve because you are Chinese, that's blantant racism. If someone says you suck because your English is not perfect, that's not racism, but still screw him. The beauty of this country everybody has a chance to climb upwards if it tries hard enough. The days of unfair opptunities because of one's skin color has long passed. Aagin, I am not saying there isn't racism anymore. Heck, I say everybody has prejudice towords difference deep down, culture, heritage plays a big part in shaping it. Are you sure you never sterotype anyboby. All you can ask is to get fair treatment, and the rest of bullcrap doesnt matter, because you sure can sterotype them back, right.
Never a big fan of these standardize personality test. Your preceived result doesnt necceary reflect it's accurate. There is more to being a lawer with matching personalities.
You and I don't agree, but that is OK.
I think you are basing your own personal experience in your allegations. Your argument is not persuasive, despite your best efforts. You are still too naive to be in law school, and overly confident.
Well I have to say that there are personality tests that have good validity and reliability. That is what we learn psychology partially for....A formal personality test, as well as IQ tests and other types, is made through a long and rigid progress. It can test most of what it wants out of you. But fredshen got the point right that people do change. No single personality test dare assert that it can promise 100% validity. Their validity generally varied from 70% to 90%, which means 70% to 90% test takers got the same result after a period of one years or so. And fredshen can conclude that such validity allow 10% to 30% people change their personality type, which is quite a great change, as time goes by.
I do hope that I can change my type, because I got ENFJ... What I believe about our personality is that there are things we can't change (what we called temperaments in psychology), we born with them. Except these temperaments, our characteristics do change. Actually, we should say that we are partially the product of the outside world we are living in. So it is possible that we are not born to be a lawyer, but the law school education and a strong will to be an eminent lawyer can help us mold a lawyer out of us.
Sorry for the mistakes I made in my writing... not quite good at it...
{codestart}<SCRIPT language=javascript type=text/javascript>
document.write (usercolor('19','fredshen'));
</script>{codeend}
Well I have to say that there are personality tests that have good validity and reliability. That is what we learn psychology partially for....A formal personality test, as well as IQ tests and other types, is made through a long and rigid progress. It can test most of what it wants out of you. But fredshen got the point right that people do change. No single personality test dare assert that it can promise 100% validity. Their validity generally varied from 70% to 90%, which means 70% to 90% test takers got the same result after a period of one years or so. And fredshen can conclude that such validity allow 10% to 30% people change their personality type, which is quite a great change, as time goes by.
I do hope that I can change my type, because I got ENFJ... What I believe about our personality is that there are things we can't change (what we called temperaments in psychology), we born with them. Except these temperaments, our characteristics do change. Actually, we should say that we are partially the product of the outside world we are living in. So it is possible that we are not born to be a lawyer, but the law school education and a strong will to be an eminent lawyer can help us mold a lawyer out of us.
Sorry for the mistakes I made in my writing... not quite good at it...
Irena, you are getting on my nerves. It usually gets uglier when one start saying the other is naive. I don't need anyone's approval, and you don't know my background either. I Just hope one day when you reach certain socialeconomic status, you will be a nicer person, but you are not there just yet. Law school by no means measures one's intelligence and ability and maybe it's your ultimate goal but certainly not my only goal. So quit being a snob youself and spreading your self-pity in this forum to others who are not familiar with this country yet.
This is what you posted in another thread
"而且即使在很平庸的美国人眼中,中国人也只是二流种族.特别在法学院"
Dr_Green, nature vs nurture, right? I am a fan of nurture. I don't believe one is born to be a lawer and the others are not(here goes again Irena's point, Chinese are preceived not good enough in Law school, which is laughable), then where are there law schools? Law school teaches one how to be a lawyer and if you are not one in the begining, you burst your ass trying and you will be one in the end instead of feeling sorry for youself.
One's profession can shapes one's personality. Those 30% of changeable personality might have a bigger role in one's career. If one's personality decides which prefession it can take, then this world is too boring.
Irena, please read the following op-ed article from WSJ Dec.1st. My opinion is on the side of these two leading professors's. If I am naive for law shcool, then they are too. Here is the article for you to evaluate.
| |||||
'We Are All Racists At Heart' By AMY WAX and PHILIP E. TETLOCK December 1, 2005; Page A16 It was once easy to spot a racial bigot: The casual use of the n-word, the sweeping hostility, and the rigid unwillingness to abandon vulgar stereotypes left little doubt that a person harbored prejudice toward blacks as a group. But 50 years of survey research has shown a sharp decline in overt racial prejudice. Instead of being a cause for celebration, however, this trend has set off an ever more strident insistence in academia that whites are pervasively biased. Some psychologists went low-tech: They simply expanded the definition of racism to include any endorsement of politically conservative views grounded in the values of self-reliance and individual responsibility. Opposition to busing, affirmative action or generous welfare programs were tarred as manifestations of "modern" or symbolic racism. Others took a high-tech path: Racists could be identified by ignoring expressed beliefs and tapping into the workings of the unconscious mind. Thus was born the so-called "implicit association test." The IAT builds on the fact that people react faster to the word "butter" if they have just seen the word "bread" momentarily flashed on a screen. The quicker response suggests that the mind closely associates those concepts. Applying this technique, researchers such as Mahzarin Banaji of Harvard have found that people recognize "negative" words such as "angry," "criminal" or "poor" more quickly after being momentarily exposed to a black (as opposed to a white) face. And this effect holds up for the vast majority of white respondents -- and sometimes even for majorities of blacks. What do investigators conclude from their findings that "blackness" often primes bad associations and "whiteness" good ones? According to some, it shows that prejudice permeates our unconscious minds and is not just confined to the 10% of hard-core bigots. Know it or not, we are all vessels of racial bias. From this sweeping conclusion, based on a small if intriguing scientific finding, social scientists, legal scholars, opinion leaders and "diversity experts" leap from thought to conduct and from unconscious association to harmful actions. Because most of us are biased, these individuals claim, we can safely assume that every aspect of social life -- every school, institution, organization and workplace -- is a bastion of discrimination. The most strenuous measures, whether they be diversity programs, bureaucratic oversight, accountability or guilt-ridden self-monitoring, cannot guarantee a level playing field. What is wrong with this picture? In the first place, split-second associations between negative stimuli and minority group images don't necessarily imply unconscious bias. Such associations may merely reflect awareness of common cultural stereotypes. Not everyone who knows the stereotypes necessarily endorses them. Or the associations might reflect simple awareness of the social reality: Some groups are more disadvantaged than others, and more individuals in these groups are likely to behave in undesirable ways.(cough, cough) Consider the two Jesses -- Jackson and Helms. Both know that the black family is in trouble, that crime rates in this community are far too high, and that black educational test scores are too low. That common awareness might lead to sympathy, to indifference, or to hostility. Because the IAT can distinguish none of these parameters, both kinds of Jesses often get similar, failing scores on tests of unconscious association. Measures of unconscious prejudice are especially untrustworthy predictors of discriminatory behavior. MIT psychologist Michael Norton has recently noted that there is virtually no published research showing a systematic link between racist attitudes, overt or subconscious, and real-world discrimination. A few studies show that openly-biased persons sometimes favor whites over blacks in simulations of job hiring and promotion. But no research demonstrates that, after subtracting the influence of residual old-fashioned prejudice, split-second reactions in the laboratory predict real-world decisions. On the contrary, the few results available suggest that persons who are "high bias" on subconscious criteria are no more likely than others to treat minorities badly and may sometimes even favor them. There is likewise no credible proof that actual business behavior is pervasively influenced by unconscious racial prejudice. This should not be surprising. Demonstrating racial bias is no easy matter because there is often no straightforward way to detect discrimination of any kind, let alone discrimination that is hidden from those doing the deciding. (cough, cough) As anyone who has ever tried a job-discrimination case knows, showing that an organization is systematically skewed against members of one group requires a benchmark for how each worker would be treated if race or sex never entered the equation. This in turn depends on defining the standards actually used to judge performance, a task that often requires meticulous data collection and abstruse statistical analysis. Assuming everyone is biased makes the job easy: The problem of demonstrating actual discrimination goes away and claims of discrimination become irrefutable. Anything short of straight group representation -- equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity -- is "proof" that the process is unfair. Advocates want to have it both ways. On the one hand, any steps taken against discrimination are by definition insufficient, because good intentions and traditional checks on workplace prejudice can never eliminate unconscious bias. On the other, researchers and "diversity experts" purport to know what's needed and do not hesitate to recommend more expensive and strenuous measures to purge pervasive racism. There is no more evidence that such efforts dispel supposed unconscious racism than that such racism affects decisions in the first place. But facts have nothing to do with it. What began as science has morphed into unassailable faith. However we think, feel or act, and however much apparent progress has been made, there is no hope for us. We are all racists at heart. (couldnt agree more!) Ms. Wax is professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Mr. Tetlock is the Lorraine Tyson Mitchell Endowed Professor in the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. | |||||
楼上好文章。
大家老是说美国歧视歧视。但是在中国就没有歧视吗？在美国，中国人是不是三等公民我不知道, 因为我没去； 但是我知道，在中国，你如果不是太子dang，你连三等公民都不如。
在上海，社会分层现象更严重。
第一等: 欧美白人（俄罗斯人除外）
第二等: 日韩人
第三等：台湾人
第四等：上海市中心人, 以淮海中路为圆点（非郊区）
第五等：外地人（general）上海话俗称："乡吾宁"
第六等：外地农民工（帮上海人修高架，轻轨的）
在骂别人前，先照一照镜子看看自己吧。自己同胞一点颜色区别都没有，就因为口音不同就要被歧视，我们还有什么理由骂别人呢？
Weqinfo,
You have a very good point here. What's more. The vicious cycle is the ones who have been the subject of precevied discrimination usually go on to discriminate others when they reach certain socialecnomic status. They were so eager to get accepted, and overly sensitive becuase they were in a minority group. But once they think they have finally arrived at what they preceived as acceptance, they start to dsicriminate others who are still trying.
Shanghai is an immgirant's city. Why prejudice is so pervasive among Shanghainese? One big reason is lot of them come from faimlies that are the subjects of discrimination years ago. This cycle just goes on. In order to break it, the new comer also need to have a mind set that they wont do the same to others when they finally settle down in the city.
Discrimination is a tricky enemy and it exists everywhere as long as there is cultures and differences. Taking morale from the WSJ article, we all should start from ourselves to make sure you will not discriminate.
Luckily —— "ENTP"～
您的人格类型是： ENTJ（外向，直觉，思维，判断）
挖卡卡……
适合耶！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |