<p>What is the best undergrad major forr someone who wanted to pursue law. Im going to stanford and would like to be either a real estate or public lawyer. thanks in advance!</p>
<p>Any major that advances critical thinking and gives you plenty of opportunity to write.</p>
<p>A trivial inquiry: How could any major at Stanford work against the applicant?</p>
<p>Few, if any, majors would work “against” someone. But, some may give you a leg up in terms of skills readiness.</p>
<p>Any major is fine in terms of law school admission. Learning to think logically and to write well are the only skills that are relevant.
You may want to intern at a law firm or at a public inteterest law firm to gain exposure to some of the different possibilities.</p>
<p>so sociology or public policy is ok?</p>
<p>Literary criticism classes can be great practice - maybe you could take one as an elective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure about that; the anglo appropriation of Derrida’s deconstruction does not emphasize analytic thinking. If anything, it critiques it.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I agree with that. Deconstructionism seeks to delve deep into the philosophical infrastructure of literary/film works in order to castigate contradictions. I am an exponent of such an art form because it induces one to traverse beneath the superficial shell of a work and realize absolute actualization/comprehension. If this is not a facet of critical thinking and understanding, I’m not sure what is.</p>
<p>Nspeds - are you kidding?</p>
<ul>
<li>Lol…</li>
</ul>
<p>LOL… FIVE DOLLAR, no?</p>
<p>oh man! cwhite beat me to it. Grrrr!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said it was not. I claimed that it</p>
<p>
Derrida will turn over in his grave if you argue that it does.</p>
<p>Moreover, deconstructionism, in the context of literary criticism, is not actually deconstructionism. The literary authorities have grossly misappropriated Derrida’s framework, with most such professors not having the slightest idea of the purpose of ‘De La Grammatologie’. </p>
<p>Judging from your paragraph, I doubt you understand what deconstructionism is either. I am not insulting you, for hardly anyone comprehends it. I only have a vague idea, and it still seems nebulous. I have seen scholars with their own interpretations of deconstruction get refuted by Derrida himself, so the fact that it has been misappropriated is no surprise.</p>
<p>Just a hint… however:
Deconstructionism does not imply that we are DEconstruction something, as in, dismantling a proposition or word into its sound-image or tracing its history or so on. DEconstruction is merely a search for the limits of construction. It is a performative term that epitomizes the folly of current linguistic analysis when persons, such as you and I, misuse it.</p>
<p>For example, when I utter the term ‘define’, I am not implying that we should dismantle a term, I am attempting to search for the limits of a word in itself. DElimit is not to destroy limits, it is to establish them.</p>
<p>We could take this to PM, for I do not want to digress fom this thread.</p>
<p>Another hilarious performative in ‘De La Grammatologie’: ‘Program’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone uses the term that way, but little does the reader know that Derrida takes it to mean (if I remember the lecture correctly): For grammar - and writing in general.</p>
<p>Deconstructionism is a refutation of analytic philosophy, structuralism, and post-structuralism. The logical positivsts did not abjure him because he was French…</p>
<p>Isn’t searching for the limits of construction an analytic (in terms of “learning to think logically and to write well”) activity?</p>
<p>And is all lit crit deconstructionist (by anyone’s definition)?</p>
<p>"Moreover, deconstructionism, in the context of literary criticism, is not actually deconstructionism. The literary authorities have grossly misappropriated Derrida’s framework, with most such professors not having the slighest idea of the purpose of ‘De La Grammatologie’. "</p>
<p>I respect your opinion, no matter how imbued it is with the stench of generality and apparent singularity. I am not entirely certain what “authorities” you have corresponded with, but I assure you that literary criticism most definitely facilities the ideas of construction in the sense that it expediates actualization through exploration. I do not feel I am in the wrong by holding the belief that Jacques Derrida intended decontructionism to be the philosophical exploration of deeper meanings within a work in order to actualize more understanding. </p>
<p>“Judging from your paragraph, I doubt you understand what deconstructionism is either. I am not insulting you, for hardly anyone comprehends it. I only have a vague idea, and it still seems nebulous.”</p>
<p>Yet you decry my entire reprisal with your version of Derrida’s ideal? Let me rephrase that…I mean to say that your desire to point out the fallacies of my argument is inappropiate because you admit to not having a complete comprehension of his proposition as well.</p>
<p>“I have seen scholars with their own interpretations of deconstruction get refuted by Derrida himself, so the fact that it has been misappropriated is no surprise.”</p>
<p>So be it.</p>
<p>“Deconstructionism does not imply that we are DEconstruction something, as in, dismantling a proposition or word into its sound-image or tracing its history or so on.”</p>
<p>I never said it did. If my diction elucidated that, I apologize. I think you have just summed up why deconstructionism IS an excellent form critical thinking. It seeks not to tear down the walls of a proposition, but it does compel us to view it in a broader spectrum. </p>
<p>In short, I do not feel it necessary that we continue this debate considering as how we are seeking to define a truth that neither one of us comprehend entirely. My point was that criticism is a beneficial component of law school preparation, and analyzing Derrida’s ephemeral ideal is quite healthy.</p>
<p>And how (our being outside of the classroom and all) is all this relevant to the original post except to someone interested in
A) splitting hairs
B) broadcasting their needy brilliance?</p>
<p>cwhite, the original statement was that lit crit can be awesome in preparation for law school. Nspeds and I hold conflicting beliefs as to whether or not this is true. What do you think about all this?</p>