Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

This is version two of the blog, which currently contains 136 published posts. To some extent, this blog represents the creative excesses of a design enthusiast who is somewhere in the process of applying to grad school, working at a law firm and resides in the Financial District of New York City.



Advertising Biglaw Books Boston California Chicago Electronics Emory Europe Finance Food Google Hawaii Journalism Korean Law School London Los Angeles LSAT Mexico Movies Music New York North Carolina Ohio Panama Paris Programming Recipes Restaurants School Shopping Site Updates Soapbox Technology Texas Theater Travel UChicago Videogames Virginia Washington D.C. Wheel Work Writing

Meta nonsense
WP-Admin
cPanel
ASO Billing


I’m taking a break from finals studying because of this crock of you-know-what from Shira Ovide of the Wall Street Journal. Ovide contends that Linkedin’s valuation is crazy because if Apple had a similar price-to-revenue ratio, it would be worth 3 trillion. While this isn’t factually false, it’s just a dumb comparison to make. Either Ovide is a little bit stupid or is engaging in intellectually dishonest journalism in order to be able to write flashy headlines.

My favorite comment in this story is the one where someone says “i could probably write a better article if i was drunk and high.” Yup.

Why is this ratio (P/R) a silly comparison? After all, P/E is one of the most-used ratios to look at in valuating companies and P/R is similar. Basically, the idea is that a company’s valuation (our P) should reflect current and future earnings, which is what the price is derived from. As such, the current revenue (that’s the R) and especially current earnings (E) should not be completely divorced from it. So, Finance 101 tells us that overly-high ratios means a company is “over-valued” and over-low ratios means a company is “under-valued.” But this is too simplistic.

(Side note: Also, the general practice is definitely and for good reason to look at P/E – price to earnings, not P/R, but I think the P/E ratio is so high at this point that I think she even realized that using words like “quatrillion” in headlines sounds like some sort of joke.)

Apple and Linkedin are companies at very different stages of their growth. Linkedin is tiny and immature — they literally just started turning a profit this year. If managed correctly, it will grow much more. It made a little over 15 million last year, which is practically negligible. Apple, on the other hand, is a huge company that is basically at maturization. To compare their P/R ratios is like having a precocious 14-year-old science fair winner and a NASA scientist take a test on astrophysics and then using their scores to determine their future academic potential (without taking into consideration age or experience). It’s just silly.

Linkedin, at it’s current price, reflects a $8 billion valuation. To compare, Apple is currently valued at $300 billion. So, despite Ovides’ silly headlines, the market does realize that Linkedin is a much smaller, much riskier company. Making the argument that a $8 billion valuation still is on the higher side is understandable and probably even right, but flashing around numbers like “3 trillion” and making it sound like it’s being valued higher than Apple or the GDP of the United States is incredibly intellectually dishonest.

In short, if you were going to look at ratios, earnings is more important than revenue. But even apart from that, focusing on either the P/E and P/R is not a great idea. The revenues of Linkedin as a point of comparison just have no meaning at this point because it’s not really a good reflection of it’s potential value. Only when the company has had a little time to mature does it mean anything. Going even further and comparing Linkedin’s ratios with a very large, mature company is idiotic.

The reason I’m calling this bad journalism is because if you know anything about finance, what I just detailed out here is really not very high level and is plainly obvious to anyone with a basic finance education. They for sure should know better. The Wall Street Journal is betraying the public’s trust in publishing this bullshit. But Ovides knows that Linkedin’s IPO is the big news of the moment and the Journal wants to have the catchiest headline — so, who cares about journalistic integrity, right?

Of course, maybe I’m being too harsh. They might all just be idiots.

No Comments »

Time Travel

April 30th, 2011

I wish I could go back to high school and make this joke over and over in math class. xkcd, I love you. You are wonderful even if sometimes the jokes are above my head. Like this one.

No Comments »

In a rather appalling turn, students peacefully protesting the treatment and compensation of the campus food service workers were arrested last night during a sit-in on the campus quad. The students were calling upon campus administrators to end Emory’s contract with Sodexo, contractor for Emory’s food services — a company that “has been identified by several independent human rights organizations as systematically violating the rights of its workers” (according to the Wheel). This decision to brute force the students into compliance is upsetting, but sadly unsurprising.

Emory Bell TowerI graduated from Emory’s undergraduate business school in 2008. During my time there, I was actively involved in numerous student organizations including the campus newspaper, student government, APO (a service fraternity), the choral program and other groups. Despite giving my all and pouring everything I could into that school, I found at each turn Emory’s administration to be caustic and resistant to any contrary opinions. (A important exception would be the largely separate business school which has an amazing and supportive administration.)

Emory is a school with great financial resources, touting a lofty mission of dedication to “service to humanity” — that is tragically run by small-minded people, cowering in their mediocrity. They’re people who were designed for middle-management, and they’re breeding a student body that will only succeed in spite of their efforts. For all the lip-service that public service gets, in the end, Emory caters to pragmatism, nepotism and complacency. They pander to improving the rankings instead of the school itself, a short-sighted and ultimately doomed endeavor.

I walked into the offices of our school newspaper during my sophomore year one morning to discover that the school’s administration had forced the General Manager of our school newspaper to resign because of internal disagreements, and she was no longer allowed on campus. As someone who was personally close to Eileen and had been both inspired and mentored by her, I found it to be an extremely disturbing and demoralizing event. Similar, though less dramatic events, littered my various experiences at Emory. Small-scale corruption breeds large-scale disenchantment. I entered Emory as an idealist, lost it, and have struggling to regain my idealism ever since.

The problem is, everyone knows. The apathy in the student body is palpable. School spirit is non-existent. Deep down, students want college to be an idealistic and inspiring experience. Instead, they find a school that is more concerned with public image than the true pursuit of knowledge or a serious dedication to service. But kids shrug it off, and drink away their college years instead, or they resign to play the game, learning the lesson that mediocrity — supported by connections and financial resources — can get you far enough with minimal effort.

I’m not surprised in the least that Emory, once ranked #9 in its hey-day has now fallen and is struggling to stay #20. What Emory doesn’t understand is that you can only dress up a turd for so long before people start to notice its stench. If you want people to think you value knowledge and dedication to service, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO IT. Until Emory truly commits to these ideas in a substantive way, it will never be the great university it so desperately, desperately wants to be. The students who are great, who will someday be great, are searching for inspiration and encouragement of their potential. They’ll pass up Emory’s pretty facade for a school that speaks to their ideas and values in an honest way. Instead, we’ll continue to attract more and more pragmatic, small, over-privileged students who will never bring Emory the national recognition it clearly craves and needs in order to attract other potentially great students.

Crushing the spirit of your student body will not breed courageous students who will inspire others. You’ll get more self-centered children, living off trust funds and getting plush, but ultimately unimportant jobs through connections. Administrators that spend all their time fighting their students will push away and demoralize those who might have been catalyzed to achieve more.

I recall a casual lunch towards the end of my junior year with the Director of Student Activities where I brought up a hypothetical scenario of the newspaper becoming independent from the school, like many collegiate newspapers (Yale Daily News, Stanford Daily, etc.) — where I was brusquely informed that the university would not tolerate “renegade” organizations and would take legal action were we to use Emory’s name.

I’m not going to engage in an assessment of whether or not administrators were legally in the right in arresting the students. Even as a law school student, I would still tell you that the law can only take you so far. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. I learned this in second grade.

Until Emory begins to embody the ideas it parrots, Emory will never get a cent from me, and I would never allow my children to attend. Today and many days, I’m ashamed to call Emory my alma mater.

The AJC article on the arrests is here.

1 Comment »
Tags:

Sweet Valley Confidential is a hot mess of a book that is bookended by an awkward beginning and a nauseating ending. It almost becomes a not entirely terrible book, but tragically-slash-comically crashes and burns in a sugary, taffeta-and-chiffon-covered mess in the last 30 pages or so.

Between watching the show and reading the 500+ Sweet Valley books I owned, I spent a large chunk of my childhood enthralled with the World of Sweet Valley and desperately wanting to be like the smart, pretty, responsible, well-meaning, but somewhat conservative Elizabeth Wakefield. I decided in middle school that I wanted to be a journalist because Elizabeth was a journalist. Elizabeth liked tall, brown-haired boys who liked to write and so did I. She wore a single-strand, lavaliere necklace and so I did, too. My sister’s name is even Jessica!

But lets face it, Sweet Valley was always sort of, well, drivel, for lack of a better word. It’s a sappy-sweet world of silly drama surrounding the Wakefield twins, Jessica (the wild/fun twin) and Elizabeth (the good/holier-than-thou one). So, my expectations for Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later were low. Like, really, really low. Nevertheless, I pre-ordered it and, despite being overwhelmed by schoolwork, read it from cover-to-cover the day it came out.

In the very first Sweet Valley book, Sweet Valley High #1: Double Love, published in 1983, Jessica tries to steal Todd Wilkins away from Elizabeth, who has a crush on him. From there, the series continues to be peppered with Jessica’s schemes in various contexts, and as the series proceeds, Todd is described to be Elizabeth’s “steady” and is the only recurrent character in Elizabeth’s love-life to crop up in the various spin-off series.

As Confidential opens, Elizabeth is now in her late twenties and is working as a journalist, having escaped to New York after her discovery of an affair between Todd and Jessica. Jessica, former cheerleader and general silly flirt, now works for a cosmetics company; and, Todd, our basketball star-turned-alcoholic-turned-vagrant loser is now a successful sports writer. The primary thrust of the book is the upcoming family event that Elizabeth is expected to go back to Sweet Valley for, which Jessica and Todd – who are now a couple – will attend as well.

In addition being written in a weirdly stilted voice that is littered with wanna-be technospeak, this world of stereotypes and sickly-sweet people has now transformed into a cast of sad, lonely, bitter people. Steven, the twins’ older bother, cheats repeatedly on his wife, who responds by baking like a madwoman. The loveable class clown, Winston, made it rich and now is isolated and surrounded by strangers and users (he eventually drunkenly falls to his questionably accidental death). Lila cheats on Ken and is divorcing him. The class gossip is as mean and empty as ever. Sweet but homely Enid is now an arrogant doctor and kind of a jerk. Elizabeth, too, finds herself compromising her principles and values as she plots to bring a hot bartender to the occasion, trying to prey on Jessica’s tendency to stray in order to sabotage Jessica’s relationship with Todd.

Perhaps this cast touches base a little closer to reality than the original characters, but it’s clearly an overly pessimistic view. While it could be construed as some sort of social commentary that addresses the characters’ original unrealistic superficiality…that’s probably giving the book too much credit. At any rate, it is a sad and angry world, but devoid of the introspection or depth that one would hope to see accompany such a stark view. In lieu of internal reflection, a vapid petulance seems to accompany the unhappiness that pervades the new Sweet Valley.

And, by some miracle, as the book approaches and descends upon the actual event — it actually starts to have something substantial to say. Elizabeth is, for once, somewhat more human in her failings, which seems more sincere, but the book’s real source of insight (well, relative to the rest of the series) is seen between Jessica and Todd. Because of the nature of the inception of their relationship, despite their mutual good intentions, they struggle — “just two guilty people” who feel trapped by their feelings of isolation and the shame that burdens their relationship. Knowledge of their mutual infidelity colors their relationship with the rest of the community, Todd is unable to trust Jessica, and Jessica is resentful of her alienation from her sister. Eventually, Jessica leaves Todd and reunites with Elizabeth.

If the book had ended there, it would have made sense in the context of the series. It would be a darker, less-bubble-gummy, and probably needlessly depressing book, but it would be an understandable accompaniment to the superficiality of the original series. Moreover, if the book was seeking to be more modernized, instead of stupidly name-dropping “facebook” and “Google,” it would reflect more modernized views of teaching girls to rely on themselves as opposed to defining themselves by their relationships to men, which the series has historically been prone to do. Finally, Jessica choosing Elizabeth over Todd would seem to take the series in a full circle and reinforces the theme of the whole series — the adventures of two sisters who are different, but love and learn from each other.

Of course, the book continues, and while I won’t get into the details because they are dumb, it really is like the book just popped a valium, did some speed and went on some hell-bent, crazy-happy writing bender for the remaining pages. Let’s just say loves are reunited, happy couples abound, everyone ends up as friends, and in classic Jane Austen-y style, it ends in a wedding! Oh, and there’s a badly written scene where there apparently is intercourse that is “over the top!” and also “spectacular!”

The book’s shortcomings are more than overwhelming. I could get into it further, but in short: there’s plenty of bad writing, some of it is just kind of kooky, the male characters are very obviously how women see men and not rooted in reality, the book has elements that are clearly holdovers from writers who are older and not “with it” … I could go on. The point is, die-hard fans will read this regardless. (I cried when Jessica and Elizabeth made up.) However — and this is a big however — it’s not a very good book, unfortunately. For a non-fan, the book will seem bi-polar and in need of some sort of intense counseling. Finally, I’m pissed off Todd and Jessica end up together. I’m just going to put that out there. That sucks. I should also note that I’ve been very generous with this book because I loved Sweet Valley. I think most people would just describe it as “hilariously bad.” One wonders if the creator secretly despised her sweet, cotton-candy world.

The only really good line in the book is delivered by the twins’ mom who, as the family dispute erupts, orders her husband to “bring out the fucking cake.”

3 Comments »
Tags:

A Top Ten List

January 26th, 2011

Everyone loves top ten lists, as evidenced by this ridiculousness, complements of the New York Times. But even while realizing the shortcomings of Top Ten Lists (necessitating comparisons of unlike things, oversimplification, lack of intellectual integrity, etc.), I just like them cause they’re fun. So, this is kind of random, but despite having no real authority or expertise in the area, I present to you my very own Top Ten list!

I don’t know why anyone would be inclined to take fashion advice from me, but here’s my list of my Top Ten “Fashion” mistakes slash decisions I wish I and other people could undo or do-over or otherwise not have done or worn. You get what I’m trying to say, right? Right. That was badly worded, but let’s just move on with the list. Things I never should have worn (and that people probably should not wear, IMHO) include:

10. Cargo pants. These never looked very good on me, but I thought I looked “street” with cargo pants on in middle school. I was wrong. In general, I’d say these can be okay in moderation and depending on the context, but you’d probably look better in something else.

9. Thick Platform sandals (this). Yuck. Mine didn’t have those skull things, but still, yuck.

8. Mini-backpacks shaped like cute animals. If you’re under the age of seven, then it’s cute. Otherwise, double-yuck.

7. Glitter Lip-smackers. I don’t know what it is about glitter that makes little girls so happy (this author has a theory), but yeah, I did this. Like, a lot. This is another thing that is probably somewhat okay in moderation.

6. Velour Pants (this). Pants made of velvet-like material. DISLIKE. Who invented these and why? I had one pair of velour pants and even then I hated them, but some of the other girls were wearing them so I tried them and hated myself for being an idiot and wearing velour pants. These are so stupid. Just wear normal pants. Or better yet, wear jeans. They’re not even that comfortable. You might as well be wearing sweatpants or yoga pants. There are so many other options that are superior just because they are not velour pants.

5. Long, lacy camis + v-neck shirt + jeans. Okay, this isn’t necessarily a terrible combination, but around senior year of high school through beginning of college, this was pretty much my go-to outfit of choice. I probably should have switched it up some.

4. Glasses leash (this). You know those string things that loop around the ends of your glasses so if they fall off they stay on your neck? Yup. I had those in 3rd grade. Super cool.

3. Overalls. Overalls are very deceptive because they are cute on models and very comfortable. When you wear them, you feel happy because you are comfy and imagine you look cute as well, but you are being cruelly deceived. In fact, you look like an idiot. The one caveat is if you are under the age of 7. Then you can wear overalls. Or if you are a model. Then it really doesn’t matter; you probably look great. Yay for you.

2. Tankinis (this, and also see this). I had one tankini back in 6th grade and luckily had the presence of mind to wear it once before realizing how atrocious tankinis are. If you look awesome in a binkini, wear that. If you look like crap in a binkini, wear a one-piece. If you are with your conservative parents, wear a one-piece. THERE IS NEVER A GOOD REASON TO WEAR A TANKINI. I’m proud and view it as a testament to my good taste that I realized this relatively early on. Tankinis are a sure-fire way to make otherwise attractive people look like crap.

Turtlenecks suck1. Turtlenecks. I really, really hate turtlenecks. I have yet to find anyone who looks good wearing a turtleneck. At best, you look like you’re in a Macy’s slash J.C. Penney’s catalog — that is still not a complement. My mom just bought me two from some special store in Japan. Why, mom? WHY? I don’t have the heart to tell her that I have not worn a turtleneck since I started dressing myself almost 20 years ago. If your neck is cold, wear a scarf. That’s all I have to say on this subject.

This post originally started off just being about how much I hate tankinis because I’m currently looking for a new swimsuit since the clasp on my last one broke when I was in Mexico, but it got me thinking about the many fashion trends that I despise. There’s always more derision to go around I guess. Happy shopping!

4 Comments »

The Ivory Tower

January 20th, 2011

I’m in library training right now. The only thing worse than library training is more library training. I would take a punch in the face (assuming no broken bones/permanent/extended damage) over library training any day. No contest.

So, today in contracts we covered mental incapacitation, and my professor told us half-jokingly that if we were all suffering from depression, we’d probably have more accurate estimates of what our grades are going to be; they’ve done surveys on this sort of thing and people are always way too optimistic. Super.

Oh, quick pause, on the topic of site updates, I finally finished putting up a temporary portfolio and added some links. Not that it matters to anyone other than me, but a nice, pretty AJAX-powered portfolio probably will not happen for at least another year, conservatively. That makes me sad. I wish I had the time. Insert wistful sigh here.

So, anyway, grades. Our first set of grades are coming tomorrow. I’m trying not to think about it. Thankfully, due to how they set up our year, this first set only represents 15% of our overall 1L grade (and around 5% of our final grade at graduation), so this first set will be minimal in terms of its overall impact. As such, I care about it more as a gauging mechanism, and less as an answer to whether or not my life will be over come tomorrow night, which is how a lot of people seem to be taking it.

This week was really shitty, but it’s almost over, and I think I’m finally not sick and that allergic reaction is more or less gone. I was stupid about it; I should have stopped taking the medicine when I first noticed something was wrong, but I’ve never been allergic to anything before so I thought maybe it was just in my head. Except it was actually extremely obvious so that made no sense. Anyway, it got a lot worse before it got better. Not cute. Bad call. People were really nice about giving me notes for classes I missed though, so that was nice.

So, for the law school musical, the main roles are for parts playing various professors, and I desperately, desperately want to play my Elements professor, who is this kick-ass, young, impressive, totally brilliant woman from Australia. (And yes, I’ve been practicing my Australian accent.) She’s feminine but definitely a feminist and she’s big into distributive justice in a law and economics context, which I love. And she wears glasses! which is just like OMG I adore you.

I’ve never really entertained the idea of going into academia, but I think it could be really amazing to be one of those people. The idea of dedicating oneself to ideas and theories has always seemed a little pretentious to me, but I feel like the professors here have an energy that’s really inspiring. Mostly, they seem happy.

Anyway, this post was sort of stream of consciousness, but whatever. I’m a little tired and a lot overwhelmed, and the real work is just beginning. But we have the Law School Auction tonight so that should be fun. It’s a twenties-styled, prohibition-era themed auction so people dress up in flapper dresses and suspenders and such. Fun stuff. Maybe I’ll go home and change, but I’m feeling a little lazy. Stay tuned for more law school shenanigans.

No Comments »

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Enter your password to view comments.

You Dumb Kid

January 11th, 2011

So, over break I started sifting through some old archives of websites and blogs I used to run. (Admittedly, this is an utterly unproductive and unbelievably self-indulgent exercise.) Most of the stuff is gone — deleted accidentally or lost when my various web hosts went out of business or something.

The stuff that’s left, though, is sort of ridiculous. I can’t believe I used to have a Fear Street and Mariah Carey website — like, what the hell? What kind of dumb kid thinks that anyone would want to visit a joint Fear Street and Mariah Carey website? Who is your target audience?? Ten-year-old-me, you are an idiot.

I feel pleased, then, that I actually had a pretty decent amount of visitors (considering the bizarre content, created by someone who only recently learned to read) until I remember that the internet was also much smaller back then. I looked up the statistics, and apparently circa late-1995 (coinciding roughly with the founding of my Frankensteinian hot mess of a site) there were approximately 18,000 sites up and running.

These archives remind me of the assortment of internet trends that have come and gone — anyone remember web rings? When people first started creating Javascript quizzes (my Barbie quiz logged over a thousand visitors a day!)? When everyone gave out site awards to one another and proudly displayed theirs on their sites? Guestbooks, anyone? Yahoo! Forums, or, prior to that, when the limits of HTML (e.g. pre-tables) meant that forum discussions were just horrible nested lists and lines of links shoved onto one page?

I’ve also been reading my old blog posts — a formidable task considering I’ve been blogging for nearly 12 years. There are things like this, which I posted about 10 years ago: “Derek (this guy at my school) was arrested on friday. I didn’t see it, but Cassie’s sister did along with the rest of her class. Apparently he ran down an 80-year old lady. No offense to the rest of the teen drivers out there, but seriously, some of you guys really suck at driving. ” WHAT KIND OF UNDER-REACTION IS THAT? And is it weird that I still basically write the same way? One would hope to see some sort of progress.

I also realize that I used to have a lot more bite. From a post at the end of freshman year of college, a mere 5-6 years ago, doling out unsolicited college advice, item #9: “If one more stupid slutty drunken bitch throws up in my hall, thereby making it smell like crap for a week, I will rip out her hair until her scalp bleeds alcohol. This is not so much advice as it is a DIRE WARNING.” Well, shit. What happened to that girl? I think I’ve gone soft.

Anyway, my conclusion after my foray into nostalgia is that I was a pretty dumb kid, but I had a lot more attitude.

And I miss the days when the internet felt small and containable and various companies would start directory projects to “index” the internet — seems like a crazy concept now. Also, this should have been said earlier, but congrats to Jane re: Penn Law. You’ll be awesome. (Hey, remember Jane the Poet?)

4 Comments »

So, there’s an op-ed in the Times today putting forth the argument that the purported health benefits of having pets are overblown – at best inconsistent and at worst counterproductive.

When I began typing this, I started off planning on writing a post about my qualms with getting information from newspapers reporting on scientific discoveries, but then got off on a tangent about why I want a puppy and when this might happen, etcetera…but I’ve removed that section now and we’re back in business (that was pointless, I know).

So anyhow, my point was that when things are reported, issues are oversimplified and that important nuances are removed to an extent that is counterproductive to people trying to make crucial decisions about their health or lives or whatnot (e.g. one article says that something is always great, another say that the same something can kill you, but in actuality whether one or the other result will obtain is dependent on whether the party in question meets specific criteria).

Sometimes, there’s enough specificity to be useful, but a lot of the time the arguments are completely one-sided or it seems like the reporter just settles for a “hey, this happens and but sometimes it doesn’t happen” without enough detail for anyone to understand why one situation would occur versus another.

The problem is, the information gets condensed and not expanded from there and most people would not bother to delve into the topic further before forming conclusions. Almost no one would be able to find the source material, and instead other sources will cite, summarize and further overgeneralize the already over-broad information. Eventually, word gets around in some snarky, 140-character form.

Anyway, I wanted to launch into some discussion about media and how it’s changing to suit consumers, and the various issues with journalism as it is currently moving to be more accessible. The problem, of course, is that I think it has been and is already sacrificing a disproportionate level of integrity for the sake of “user-friendliness,” and that no form of media other than books seem to have found a way to inform that manages to be sufficiently accurate.

I was also going to talk about how people who look to movies and television instead of reading to glean insight on the human condition or philosophy or politics are being sadly mis-educated. I love movies and television, but I go to them for entertainment and inspiration, not information. If you want to learn, you gotta read.

Blah, blah, blah — ergo I heart books and people should read more. The end. I was going to write something more cogent, but it’s such a preachy thing (I know) and anyone who would bother to read it (out of my readership of like 3 people) would probably not be the people I would ideally like to direct the message at anyway, oh, sweet irony…my point is, I really do think people should read more.

2 Comments »

Happy Days

December 29th, 2010

So, Cabo was great, warm and full of family and good food. Afterwards, I came home to Plano and met up with a bunch of kids from high school – we had a four-hour dinner at a family-styled Italian restaurant – and also Iris and Ruth, both of whom I haven’t seen in over two years.

Mostly, it was heartwarming to see everyone doing well and happy with their lives and choices in careers (or at least putting on a convincing show). It’s weird to think of us all back in high school playing Tetrinet in class, doing problem sets, coming up with skits, doing artsy projects, talking about prom dates and all sorts of silly things. Now, a significant portion of our little IB class is married and some have kids. And, of the thirteen that got together over break, three were in law school, three were in medical school (or soon to be), and three had masters degrees. Others had very serious-sounding jobs, haha.

It’s comforting to see that through the stress, moving, debating over jobs, majors, colleges, and a bunch of other dilemmas, everyone seems to have gotten through it all and come out on top and are able to be supportive of each other and happy for each others’ various accomplishments.

So, yeah, break was nice. Happy holidays!

No Comments »