It’s pupillage season with the Gateway opening. I’m not on the pupillage committee at @5SAHLaw but I do deal with mini-pupillages. This is a thread for aspiring barristers applying for both pupillages and mini-pupillages. I hope it helps some of you through a difficult process.
More from Legal
Transferring power back to you, the ppl
https://t.co/26N2YYXycn
Heart attacks can be dangerous
Changing of the Old Guard
Best of the Best
Battle of the Bulge
https://t.co/MpYwQFkhmy
Thunder indicates a storm is
Silent Run'g ..... Can u hear him
https://t.co/26N2YYXycn
Heart attacks can be dangerous
Changing of the Old Guard
Best of the Best
Battle of the Bulge
https://t.co/MpYwQFkhmy
Battle of the Bulge
— JeLove (@LovesTheLight) December 22, 2020
1226
44
101
BB https://t.co/NkaSAyGiCa
Thunder indicates a storm is
"You called down the thunder? Well now you got it."
— JeLove (@LovesTheLight) January 16, 2021
"You tell'em the laws coming....and hells coming with me"
Its a Day of Reckoning.
3:16
42https://t.co/ty1hgfL7iV pic.twitter.com/aczIsLUrX0
Silent Run'g ..... Can u hear him
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?