text:
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Profiles in Cowardly Paper Lions: Athornia Steele, Adjunct "Professor" at Fourth Tier Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center
Here is Steele's bio. You can tell that this rat hasn't missed many meals – off the backs of debt-strapped graduates and students. If you dare try to warn lemmings of the law school scam, he cites to lousy musicals in LSAC publications that are worth less than single ply toilet paper.
Academic Small-Mindedness: In the May 2015 issue of the LSAC Report newsleTTTer, Cockroach Athornia Steele wrote a column labeled "The Leadership of Admission Professionals in the Land of Oz." Look at his opening paragraph:
"Legal education, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, has been caught in an ill wind. Negativity about the value of a law degree, ethical dilemmas in the admission process, questions about the qualifications of the applicant pool, declines in the legal job market, increases in student debt, and the resultant decrease in applicants to law school has made for a tumultuous ride. You, the admission professionals, are like Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodsman, and the Lion courageously in search of a way home, a feeling of stability, and a sense of forward momentum. We are all hoping that there IS a Wizard of Oz, or at least a Good Witch, who will help us in our quest." [Emphasis mine]
In his little Tin Man mind, $TTTTeele thinks that a declining applicant pool, the weak-ass JD employment market, and increases in student debt are no big deal. That's because this bastard isn't the one who has to face today's prevailing job outlook. In fact, it is in his be$t intere$t to enroll as many morons as possible – regardless of their chances of ever practicing law!
Now, scroll down to Steele's last "substantive" paragraph:
"I have always loved the story of the Wizard of Oz and believe it to be a story directed to adults as well as children. If you go to your library's catalog or Google any combination of the words leadership and/or personal development along with Wizard of Oz, a number of books and articles written on the leadership and personal development lessons of the Wizard of Oz appear. Of course, many of you have long ago observed that the Scarecrow complaining of no brain, the Tin Woodsman lamenting the absence of a heart, and the Cowardly Lion crying about his lack of courage each possessed and demonstrated that which they thought they lacked…Legal education in general, and admission professionals in particular, are engaged in a journey. It may take a bit more than clicking our heels together to overcome the wicked witch of the scam bloggers, rankings, negative media stories, declining applications, and pressuring deans, but at least at this annual meeting and educational conference, we can take some time to consider possibilities, recharge our internal strengths, and bask in the support of our friends and colleagues (and some lovely beaches and sunshine)."
Yeah, it's always great when a 60 year old man publicly proclaims how much he loves a children's story, right?!?! It is clear that these "educators" have too much free time on their hands. When reading his reference to beaches and sunshine in San Diego, you can tell that this rodent doesn't miss a wink of sleep at night, thinking of the legions of students who have been FINANCIALLY RUINED as a direct result of their decision to attend law school.
Other Coverage: On June 12, 2015, dybbuk wiped his ass with Athornia Steele's little mustache, in a OTLSS entry entitled "Athornia Steele, Nova Southeastern Law Prof. and LSAC Board of Trustees Chair, compares scambloggers to the "wicked witch" from the Wizard of Oz." After berating the cockroach, here is his conclusion:
"Now, Dorothy did say that there is no place like home, but a fancy resort vacation is still pretty good, especially when LSAC or one's employer is picking up the tab. And, of course, there is also law school - there is definitely no place like that.
It may be presumptuous to criticize a children's fantasy classic, but it really is a shame that the story did not end on a more uplifting note. There should have been a joyous concluding scene where Dorothy mortgages the family farm to attend law school so that she can address the obvious crisis of unmet legal needs in her small Nebraska, I mean Kansas, rural community, as well as elevate her own leadership skills and personal development. In solidarity with Toto, she could then go on to obtain an LLM in Animal Law, the better to critique the legal system's species-based hierarchy.
Lacking that, it is fortunate that we have great and powerful legal intellectuals like Professor Athornia Steele to tease out the similarities between Oz and law school recruitment. Which scambloggers can do too, of course, but our perspective is tainted by wicked witchery." [Emphasis mine]
You can see that these "educators"/swine view the students as a mere mean$ to an end, i.e. big piles of federal student loan dollars. Anyway, let's take a brief look at the commode where Steele "works."
Rank of Steele's Toilet: According to US "News" & World Report, Nova $ouTTTThea$TTTTern Univer$iTTTTy $hepard Broad Law Cesspool is rated as FOURTH TIER TRASH PIT! Yes, what a remarkable achievement, huh?!?!
Average Law Student Indebtedness: The same publication provides an even more meaningful metric, regarding student debt. US "News" lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the Nova Southeastern University JD Class of 2014 who incurred debt for law school - as $136,450. Hell, 86% of this school's 2014 cohort took on such toxic debt. Don't forget that this amount does not even include undergraduate debt. Nor does it take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, Athornia "Dorothy" Steele is mad because others – with brains, balls, and a backbone – have informed legions of people about the law school scam. As a result of our efforts, along with major help from mainstream press articles, enrollment continues to drop at ABA-accredited dung heaps. Now this cockroach and his fellow academic piles of waste are not able to reap as much federal student loan money, with so little effort. Steele has less honor than the old man behind the curtain. After all, he DOES NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN ABOUT YOU or your job prospects, coming out of his garbage in$TTTTiTTTTuTTTTion.
37 comments:
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 6:36 AM
And to top it all off, his name sounds like the pen-name of an author who writes trashy bodice-rippers.ReplyDeleteReplies
- AnonymousJune 17, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Sounds like a pickpocket to me.Delete
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 12:32 PM
Nando and others, this is the best inside academic's explanation of how schools close, using the dental school closing example in the 1990s.
At that time, dentistry lost prestige and the quality and number of apps fell to 1.2:1, in addition to expensive accreditation standards (e.g. dental clinic).
other than the lack of expensive accreditation standards, why have more law schools not closed, already in the red? Is society just that more perverted/harder to make an honest living since 1992?
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM
I would like to see Dorothy's house land on one of these evil law faculty.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 9:48 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 10:35 AM
The law school admission's counsel and all their affiliate enablers—the undergraduate prelaw advisors—should be ashamed of themselves. To the extent that enrollment at all but the T-13 hasn't imploded even further, these shills deserve partial credit. The only honest career function of prelaw advisors is to vehemently discourage anyone with below an 85% ranking on the LSAT to even consider applying to law school, and even then only on a full scholarship if not T-7. The best thing a prelaw advisor can do is to give lemmings a copy of Paul Campos's Book: "Don't go to Law School Unless".ReplyDeleteReplies
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 2:07 PM
No one should go to law school. Even if you are 85 percentile of test takers you will end up in a big law hell hole just trying to pay off your loans so you can quit. Why not just skip the whole thing?Delete
- gribbleJune 19, 2015 at 11:31 AM
85th percentile is low. Even 95th percentile won't get you anywhere. You're looking at 98th or 99th percentile, which is honestly just luck and literally only a few questions difference from 95th.Delete
But if you are capable of 95-99th percentile, you should just go into another field, sans incredible family connections that guarantee you serious cash and the upper echelon jobs normal proles will never have access to. And in which case, you also could have just done anything else as well.
It's probably easier now with a 95th percentile score to get into the bottom of the T14, but that's seriously pretty useless. HYS still has high standards, it's that everything below that has been dropping because smart people aren't going to go.
I wouldn't go now, I would simply just go to medical school. That is the competition at the higher levels. There should only be maybe 20 law schools max in the entire country, and even that would require probably a decade to work through this ridiculous glut and due to the fact that people don't seem to age out of this profession.
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 3:03 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 4:18 PM
"Looking good, Billy Ray."ReplyDelete
"Feeling good, Louis."
Isn't that what it really is all about for the "professors?"
Work a month or two of hours a year, rehashing and regurgitating the same, dog-eared material outlined a decade ago when non-tenured, with an occasional sabbatical, cushy trips to conferences and symposia, cashing in on soon-to-be-forgiven university mortgages for second homes, and writing (publishing) scholarship few ever read.
The Emperor's new clothes have never looked better.
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 4:43 PM
This whole nightmare of the legal education industry and the horrific damage done to children reminds me of the song, "Master Jack," from the 70's or so.ReplyDelete
One pertinent stanza is:
You taught me all the things the way you'd like them to be
But I'd like to see if other people agree
It's all very int'resting the way you disguise
But I'd like to see the world through my own eyes
I think it fits the law school-academic industrial complex.
OL's are sold an engineered, pre-packaged vision, playing to their "Special Snowflake" bias-essentially adults robbing children.
The Federal government is complicit in the scam, and children are RUINED.
Today, on the news, was a segment on how the FTC is pursuing retailers who "mark up" products, then advertise the "big write-down" to entice customers to grab a bargain.
And how is this different than law schools (and undergraduate institutions) advertising a huge tuition, then offer huge discounts to folks who have weak academic credentials?
My son #3, a mediocre student in high school, was offered a $7,000 "University Scholarship" to attend a private university. Turns out, EVERY STUDENT IN THE UNIVERSITY was "awarded" that scholarship. So, what has "scholarship" got to do with EVERYONE getting the same scholarship. Of course, the school only admits residents of Lake Wobegon -all above average…
Well this son is no match for my academic record, and in 1974, I received NO scholarship-I was top 10% of my H.S. class. I am no genius-but far from stupid.
So, son #1 and son #2 went to the same school. Tuition has increased during that time, yet the cost to me remained constant, due to the increases in the "University Scholarship."
Son #3 is going to a junior college for his first 2 years. Hopefully, he will do well and get into the "University."
"University" tuition is $31,000 a year. Jr. College tuition is about $6,000.
The Jr. College has a table of convertible hours from the Jr. College to the "University" and my son #3 can do a program to transfer all of his Jr. College hours to the "University."
We shall see how this works.
Several observations:
1. If I, as an attorney, billed clients on this basis, I would hope that I would be disbarred. My state, however, REQUIRES that attorney trust accounts pay all their interest to some state fund to pay legal expenses for the impoverished. Noble thought, but state sanctioned theft in my opinion.
2. I normally charge $350 for a "simple will." (I usually lose money on an hourly basis at that price.) I am considering charging $90,000 for a simple will. Giving a $60,000 "scholarship," giving the client a new Porsche, and pocketing the $350. Tell me, how is this different from what law schools do?
I need help-explain it to me. Thanks.Replies
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 3:45 PM
can you break down how you are losing money on the 350/simple will? This may hel the layperson that may not now.Delete
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 9:05 PM
PART ONEDelete
Brace yourself.
I always insist on meeting with my clients twice, first
to get a full family tree,
to discuss their existing Wills, if any,
to find out if any children or descendants have any special needs, requiring a special needs trust,
to determine if everyone in the family is getting along, or if there are outliers who are estranged,
to determine if there have been any disproportionate loans to anyone that the client may want to be equalized in an estate setting,
to pitch the value of Powers Of Attorney over a Guardianship proceeding,
to determine if there are any specific bequests,
to determine the approximate value of the taxable estate to determine if any Federal or State estate or inheritance tax liability issues,
to determine if there are any divorce judgments or settlement agreements requiring specific testamentary or trust provisions,
to determine if there are business interests that may be operating that require some measure of protection,
to discuss the duties of an Executor, and the suitability of the available family or acquaintances for the job, the state of residence of everyone to judge the practical feasibility of serving as Executor, the education and occupation of all prospective Executors so I can suggest folks who may be more suitable for the job,
the approximate relative wealth of children and Executor-sometimes this affects folks' mindsets in dealing fairly with others,
the demeanor of spouses of children-some "snipe" in the background and create great measure of trouble, having no interest in the game.
I never trust obituaries for a statement of "heirship." My favorite was the guy who had 8 kids in the obituary. In truth, none of them was a legal child, but all children of his second wife. His ONLY natural child, was not named in the obituary. Surprise.
I prepare a flow chart family tree, one for me, and one for my client. I update it at ever opportunity so I know who is who from the horse's mouth, and not from an interloper.
38 year solo
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 9:06 PM
PART TWODelete
I always prepare a table of testamentary documents. Another flow chart. It shows testamentary documents which predate my work, to the extent I can determine their existence, and the work I do currently, and I update it if they come back to amend the work I have done. It is a ready reference for me, my client, and their family in the event of death.
I get as good an inventory of assets as I can, so if they die suddenly, and are the last of the husband-wife couple to pass, I have some idea of the assets we are looking to locate.
I LISTEN to what my clients say. Sometimes they say things that change what I would recommend, or belie a fundamental misunderstanding on how the law works, which I explore and correct.
I advise on the various options and techniques available in structuring testamentary plans.
I review any existing Wills and Powers Of Attorney the bring to me, for sometimes, nothing need be done but review the existing documents and reassure them that their current wishes are met by existing documents.
It takes an hour to an hour and a half to get through the initial office conference.
It takes about an hour to an hour and a half to do the Wills.
The Will execution conference takes about half an hour to an hour, depending on the client, the questions they ask, if changes are made at the last minute (only minor for I do not do major changes on the "fly.")
So, we are at 2.5 to 3 or 4 hours or so. I charge $215 per hour, though many attorneys, some of whom I mentored charge $275 per hour. I charge what I hope will be paid.
38 year solo
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 9:07 PM
PART THREEDelete
Even at the low end of hours, I lose money on an hourly basis. I do better if I do Wills for a husband and wife, and Powers Of Attorney for both. Generally, those documents are "parallel" documents, with few changes between them, so preparation on computers is quicker. The real value of my work to my clients is advising them and making them aware of potential changes in their lives which warrant a call to me for a quick consultation.
I try to keep my hourly at a rate I will be paid, instead of constantly discounting bills by hundreds of dollars.
I do very careful work. It has to be that way. If you make a mistake, you will find it ONLY AFTER YOUR CLIENT IS DEAD and not much of a witness at that point. You will be left defending yourself against angry heirs-and you will look DEFENSIVE. Bad day.
38 year solo
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 9:13 PM
PART FOURDelete
Actually, my personal view is that I never charge "attorney's fees." I charge "premiums." What is the risk I will be sued for this work?
A person wanted me to do a couple of prenuptial agreements regarding assets worth $11,000,000. Person wanted to pay $2,500 for them. Well, on my claims made malpractice policy, I am sure that coverage for that value would far and away exceed the $2,500 "premium" for one year, and I would have to pay the premium every year until I quit, and then pay a "tail coverage" premium.
I declined the work.
I make a copy of all signed documents for my file so a Will presented someday by a family member, if prepare by me, had better have IDENTICAL signatures to what is in my file.
I programmed a database program to I could enter data about every "testamentary" document I prepared, including Wills, Powers Of Attorney, Trusts, Declarations of Living Will (Illinois), Revocation of (whatever), and so on, and critical data for every document executed in my office is entered in that database.
I also insist that every document Will be executed in my office, so that the witnesses' names and notary''s name is recorded, as insurance against fraud. Only ONE Will was not executed this way, and I know which one.
I am sure this is not all that floods though my head when interviewing a Will client, and preparing the documents they want, but it is a start.
38 year solo
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 6:51 PM
So, maybe, I'll charge $5.6 million for a simple Will, give a $1 million "discount, give the client a $4.5 million Lear jet, and pocket my $350.00.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 6:55 PM
I am concerned about two items:ReplyDelete
1. Virtually NO OL's comment here.
2. Law school applications/enrollments have not seemed to drop appreciably.
As a 38 year solo--is anyone listening???Replies
- AnonymousJune 17, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Get yourself on the website Top Law Schools, but be warned they'll kick you off for truthiness. I think AutoAdmit has waned in popularity. But those two are lemming stomping grounds. Go forth. Not many older attorneys around those parts, and your word would carry there.Delete
- AnonymousJune 17, 2015 at 7:40 PM
Thanks. Will check it out.Delete
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 9:20 PM
One would think, in a rational world, that the bottom 60 law schools would have NO APPLICANTS next year.Delete
Could we just make that a reasonable goal, folks. Just the bottom 60? Just don't go apply. Just don't go.
Buy yourself a new (or used car) or a hot fudge sundae. Of a kit to lance blisters. Even a root canal??? Something enjoyable and useful. But don't go to the bottom 60 law schools.
Think of it as a sabbatical for yourself where you are paid. Skip law school for one year. Make a few bucks doing something fun. See how this mess turns out. Your target school rises to fame, go ahead. If it has collapsed, you are ahead.
There is no rush. The precipice looms always.
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 9:31 PM
I have checked them out.Delete
The Third Tier format is much more amenable to communicating to many with a single post.
On Top Law Schools, I would have to make dozens of posts to establish a presence in each thread.
How can we entice Lemmings to Third Tier Reality where it is easier to communicate with them?
38 year solo
- AnonymousJune 20, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Hi 38 year solo, just to let you know you are reaching some 0L's. I turned down numerous good scholarship offers (on average around ~66% of tuition) from good schools (top 20 - 50). But not without first trying to negotiate and get scholarship increases (which I did, but not sufficient). In large part, turning down these offers was due to the numerous testimonials and anecdotes on places like this website, jdunderground, paul campos blog and others. Plus general dissatisfaction with the way that deans / professors / current students answered questions pertaining to the job market and the financial sustainability of law school debt. Also the info on Law School Transparency was very helpful.Delete
The job market is just too weak to justify taking on the debt right now. It's sad for me because I believe I'd be well suited to the work, and this may have been my last cycle to realistically attend (I'm already older than the average law grad). I'm still following the situation in hopes that the apps and matriculants absolutely collapse this year, then maybe I could reapply. But LSAC data indicates only a minor drop in applicants. Although the drop off was higher among the higher LSAT scorers, of which I am one.
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 6:56 PM
And, if you do not care about YOUR LIFE, why should I????ReplyDelete
I do, for I know the PAIN.Replies
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 9:24 PM
And, being older, though my eyesight is fading, I can see farther in time than you, with my mind-my eyes are not needed.Delete
And you should listen.
You have much more to lose than you know.
(Oh, and not a single purported professor has posted to counter anything I have written all these months. I don't believe they have an answer. Not the ABA for that matter.)
38 year solo
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 7:48 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 8:52 PM
I could get into law school...if I only had a brain.ReplyDelete
(Oh wait. You don't need one to get in now?)
- AnonymousJune 17, 2015 at 9:51 AM
Nando did you see this?!ReplyDelete
The Obama administration said it would forgive federal student loans owed by Americans who can show they were lured to colleges by fraudulent recruiting. . . . Officials said that under the emerging plan, the government will consider forgiving any loans made directly by the government—those held by the majority of the 43 million Americans with student debt—so long as the borrower can document a school persuaded him or her to take out the loan under conditions that would violate state laws. . . . such as by using false advertising or other deception—to lure them to apply and borrow funds. . . . Under Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell said the agency realized the move could invite applications from across higher education, whether from community college students or law-school graduates. The agency said it would hire a "special master" to figure out many of the details, including what standards the department should use to determine whether a school had violated state law. The department also would likely hire additional personnel to handle the applications.
Google "Obama Administration Opens Door for More Student-Debt Forgiveness" for the WSJ story.Replies
The state should take that money out of the scamsters' asses.Delete
- AnonymousJune 17, 2015 at 3:13 PM
Fact is, most of the lemmings that will come out of a school like Nova, unless they're at the top of the class, would be LUCKY to get doc review in today's environment, just to keep the lights and heat on in their studio apartment!ReplyDelete
There are doc reviewers in their 40s and 50s making $25 an hour in these dungeons. Lawyers with experience you wouldn't believe: solos who once ran their own lucrative practices, former partners at small firms that split up, ex DA and public defenders, etc. The idea that everyone on doc review is a 2.0 GPA type from a Cooley/NYLS type TTT school is absurd, and I hope none of you have to learn this the hard way.
For example, a good buddy of mine from a project once was a partner in a small personal injury firm. Back when these cases were easier to settle, he made as much as 200 K a year. But the carriers started cracking down and making every case into a dogfight, revenue slowly dried up, and eventually they had to close up shop. He tried getting into insurance defense, but those jobs pay so poorly (45 K a year is not unusual, even for people with experience) that he had nowhere else to turn but the doc review dungeons.
Another gal I know was a NJ assistant DA who was let go in the budget cuts. She tried for months to get a job in private practice criminal defense, but sadly those jobs pay even worse than doc review (she was offered 25 K plus a 50/50 split of cases she brought in) by one DWI defense mill, and that was her only offer. Very few shitlawyers can make a living in crim. defense since 95%+ of all criminals just get the public defender.
I had to stop doing doc review largely because seeing (and working in) such an utter & complete waste of human capital gets depressing to the point of suicide after a few years. Understand that in document review you are treated and reminded every working minute that you're a worthless, expendable loser due no courtesy, respect, or treated with any professionalism whatsoever. The firms and agencies will lie about hours, lie about pay rates, lie about project length, and provide you with working conditions so abysmal you'll dread getting up in the morning.
Understand that many doc review jobs get cancelled before they even happen: Skadden, at least back in the day, was/is notorious for this. They used to staff thru an agency called Clutch Group, and the pay was often above market.
But 9 of 10 times the projects would never happen. I suppose Skadden wanted to have the coders lined up while settlement talks were ongoing so they could "call the bluff" of their adversary and start discovery rolling along quickly if need be.
Way Back in 2007 I was strung along for 2 weeks waiting on a gig to start: first it was Monday, then Wednesday, then Thursday, then the following Monday, then BAM: the case settled= no project period. So all that time wasted sending resumes, filling out conflict forms, and worst of all turning down other projects in the interim: all for naught. Do you know what it's like to have rent/student loans due and turn down 2 other projects while waiting for Skadden, then find out the rug was pulled out from under you? Then you have to start scouring craigslist all over again and calling all the other agencies begging them to put you on the fist gig that comes in.
Also after you do doc review awhile you start getting "conflicted out" of projects. I conflicted out of nearly every pharma project in 2008-9 because I worked on the huge Seroquel case. So you're stuck either lying to get on the gig, or turning it down and being broke. Some choice, huh?
Let's take a look at the LSN profile for ATTTThornia $TTTTeele'$ trash pit, Nova Southeastern "University" Shepard Broad Law Cesspool:
Nova Law School is considered a Somewhat Competitive law school, which accepts only 51% of its applicants. Comparatively, Nova is Higher than the average cost for law school.
Class of 2019
Applications: 2044
Offers: 1033 (50.54%)
Matriculated: 369 (18.1%)
25th percentile GPA: 2.93
Median GPA: 3.14
75th percentile GPA:3.38
25th percentile LSAT: 147
Median LSAT: 150
75th percentile LSAT: 153"
Yes, what an extremely selective school, right?!?! After all, the pigs "only" accept SLIGHTLY MORE THAN HALF of all applicants! Hell, crack addicts are more discriminatory in their tastes.
Scroll down to the "placement" data for this commode's graduates:
Deciding to attend law school requires a large financial investment with the goal of securing employment upon graduation. The Nova Southeastern University class of 2014 had an employment rate of 81% with 3% pursuing an additional degree."
Keep in mind that these figures take the following positions into account: part-time, full-time, legal, non-law, long-term, and short-term. If you are employed as an insurance adjuster or you stock shelves at PetSmart – within 10 months of earning your TTTT law degree – then you are considered "employed" for the purposes of this survey. Imagine if U.S. medical schools resorted to such measures!Replies
- AnonymousJune 17, 2015 at 8:52 PM
To its credit, I was visiting Ft. Lauderdale one time and took a stroll through Nova. Hot girls abound! Of course, you might get more bang for your buck at a whorehouse.Delete
To tell the truth, I'm surprised that the figures are that good. Median LSAT score of 150? Acceptance of only 51% of applicants? I had expected quite a bit worse.Delete
Close to 20% of the class is unemployed—meaning no job at all, not even a day a week at McDonald's. And how much did it cost to attend this filthy toilet?
- AnonymousJune 18, 2015 at 1:34 PM
From JDUnderground:ReplyDelete
"dtejd1997 (Jun 18, 2015 - 12:17 pm)
Hey all:
I've been in doc review now for a while...too long...
I've notice some interesting things:
A). The only way to get in is when there are big "cattle calls" and they need all hands on deck for big projects. They have a stable book of reviewers that get call backs for smaller projects.
B). Once you get your foot in the door, it is relatively easy to get steady work within a few months. Show up, do your work, keep your head down, be friendly, and your going to get all the work you want.
C). The state of legal industry is truly SHOCKING. A lot of people are waiting to get INTO doc review...A lot of people are "big law" lay offs. There are people in their 50's and 60 and 70's working doc review. There are people that come to doc review for the "big money". I can't tell you how many people were working with low level firms that quit because after 3-6-12-18 months they got burned out and were tired of making $9-$12 an hour.
D). A lot of people at doc review that are young live at home. They live at home not because they want to, but because they HAVE TO.
E). Most of the women are WAY overweight, broken down, and dress poorly. Not at all what I think of when I think attorney. To be fair, there are some middle aged women that dress very sharply, but they all got let go from more lucrative careers.
F). A lot of women are married/living together with boyfriends. Very few single women, even fewer single good looking women. There are some...but they are rare. One of the problems they have is they are in an impossible situation. What type of guy is going to get into a relationship with a doc reviewer living at home, and buried under a mountain of debt?
G). A lot of young people are buried so far under debt, they couldn't get out even if they wanted to. There was a guy at work who was living at home at 40, and had been paying off student loan debt for 4.5 years. He had another 4 years or so to go. The whole time he is living like a pauper. Always brought his lunches, didn't go out, didn't date, etc. etc. Skool was a great investment for him!
H). Perhaps most shocking of all...A lot of young attorneys here are like battered wives. They went to low level skools and they don't regret it! They frequently say they knew the job market was bad, and they don't have a problem with it...They don't have a problem with their skool's 50% bar passage rate. They don't think there is a scam going on. They even bristle at the mere suggestion of a law school scam!
I). Some of these people are k-jd, and this job is the MOST money they've ever made by FAR. Their other jobs were fast food, or low level retail. They just have absolutely no grasp of math or finances. No experience.
So those are some of my observations..."Replies
- AnonymousJune 19, 2015 at 12:45 PM
This is a poignant description of the far-reaching effects of THE LAW SCHOOL SCAM!Delete
Back on April 14, 2014, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry regarding faculty payouts at Nova $ouTTTThea$TTTTern "University" $hepard Broad Law Cesspool. The piece was entitled "Yet Another Law School Is Offering Buyouts To Its Tenured Professors." Here is the full text of the article:
"Today has been quite the roller coaster. Layoffs here, layoffs there, rescinded offers everywhere. It certainly looks like the legal profession has a case of the Mondays.
To cap off this day of negative news, we've got word of yet another law school that's offering buyouts to its tenured faculty. Yes, tenured faculty, oh my.
Which law school put this offer on the table, and how many professors are expected to take it?
Nova Southeastern Law, whose rank is not published because U.S. News is far too kind, sent letters to all of its full-time faculty members back in March to announce the buyouts. The school hopes to cap acceptances of the offered buyouts at 20 percent of its tenured faculty.
The school has unique eligibility standards for the buyouts, according to the Daily Business Review:
To become eligible, professors must achieve a "point" rating of 60, which combines age and years of service. For example, [Bruce] Rogow is 74 and has taught at Nova for 40 years, so his score is 114.
The faculty has until May 25 to decide whether to take the buyouts….
Per Rogow, the faculty is "delighted" by the specifics of the offer (e.g., its inclusion of three years of health insurance). The buyout is still optional, so "it's hard to think of it negatively," said one law professor.
Nova Southeastern is using this as an opportunity to bring new intellectual lifeblood to its faculty, and that's not a bad thing. If anything, the school is reacting rationally to its downturn in applicants. It's only when the voluntary buyouts turn into not-so-voluntary buyouts and straight-up layoffs that things go sour.
Also on the bright side, the Nova Southeastern law profs who decide to take the school's retirement offer don't even have to travel down to the state that doubles as America's nursing home. They're already there."
In the end, this law school is a notorious pile of dog excrement. It has earned its garbage reputation, since its inception. If this is the best school you can get into, then that is pathetic. In the event that you are enrolled in this dung pit, it speaks volumes about your "critical thinking" skills. Why would ANYONE want to hire someone as moronic as you – to represent them in important legal matters – when you cannot even look out for your own personal best interest?!?!
Check out this permanent page, when you have a chance. On June 29, 2015, the brilliant Law Lemmings website wiped its ass with Athornia Steele's snout, in a piece entitled "Wicked Witches and the Cowardly Law Prof."
The picture alone is epic. Now, scroll down to the concluding paragraphs below:
"What the hell? Is this real? Yep, legal education as we know it is indeed engaged in a journey. It is a journey toward irrelevance. And while you and your goons skip along the Yellow Brick Road holding hands, your graduates struggle with massive debt, horrendous job prospects, and three years wasted so you can blather about the Wizard of Oz at a beach resort.
Want to know how many emails I received from suicidal law school graduates while you "basked in the support of colleagues" and sipped rum drinks on the beach?
I don't need the Wizard of Oz to describe you, professor. Your former students make it clear what your priorities are."
The article provides a hyperlink to this douchebag's Rate My Professors review page. Apparently, his reputation - as an "educator" - is lower than whale excrement. What an accomplishment, pig. Go sip a Mojito, Bitch.


text:
|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français
Understanding the relationship between robustness and evolvability is key to understand how living things can withstand mutations, while producing ample variation that leads to evolutionary innovations. Mutational robustness and evolvability, a system's ability to produce heritable variation, harbour a paradoxical tension. On one hand, high robustness implies low production of heritable phenotypic variation. On the other hand, both experimental and computational analyses of neutral networks indicate that robustness enhances evolvability. I here resolve this tension using RNA genotypes and their secondary structure phenotypes as a study system. To resolve the tension, one must distinguish between robustness of a genotype and a phenotype. I confirm that genotype (sequence) robustness and evolvability share an antagonistic relationship. In stark contrast, phenotype (structure) robustness promotes structure evolvability. A consequence is that finite populations of sequences with a robust phenotype can access large amounts of phenotypic variation while spreading through a neutral network. Population-level processes and phenotypes rather than individual sequences are key to understand the relationship between robustness and evolvability. My observations may apply to other genetic systems where many connected genotypes produce the same phenotypes.
Robustness and evolvability are fundamental properties of biological systems. They determine a system's persistence and its potential for future evolutionary change. Multiple definitions of robustness and evolvability are in use (Houle 1992; Kirschner & Gerhart 1998; Bedau & Packard 2003; Hansen 2003; Masel & Bergman 2003; Michod et al. 2003; Nijhout et al. 2003; Earl & Deem 2004; Aharoni et al. 2005; Wagner 2005; Sniegowski & Murphy 2006). For my purpose, I call a biological system mutationally robust if its function or structure persists after mutations in its parts. The system is evolvable if mutations in it can produce heritable phenotypic variation. Both robustness and evolvability are quantitative properties. For instance, a system can be more or less robust in response to a given number of mutations. Both definitions apply to systems on different levels of organization, including RNA and protein molecules, small genetic circuits, genome-scale networks such as metabolic networks and even whole organisms. The appropriate nature of a mutation depends on the level of organization one focuses on. It may correspond to amino acid change for proteins, regulatory mutations in genetic circuits or changes in enzymatic reactions for a metabolic network. The appropriate notion of phenotype also depends on this level of organization. Examples include the spatial conformation or catalytic activity of a macromolecule, and a gene expression pattern for a genetic circuit.
At first sight, the above definitions imply an antagonistic relationship between robustness and evolvability: the more robust a system is, the less phenotypic variation a given number of mutations generate and hence the less evolvable the system is (Ancel & Fontana 2000; Sumedha et al. 2007). However, from different perspectives, robustness and evolvability may go hand in hand. First, multiple experiments show that many organisms harbour cryptic genetic variation—reflecting robustness—which can become visible in certain environments or genetic backgrounds, and thus lead to enhanced evolvability (Waddington 1953; Dun & Fraser 1959; Waddington 1959; Rutherford & Lindquist 1998; Queitsch et al. 2002). Next, a biological system with a given phenotype typically has many alternative genotypes that can produce this phenotype (Wagner 2005). These genotypes are often connected; that is, they can be reached from each other through series of single mutations, as was shown first for RNA (Schuster et al. 1994). Importantly, this connectedness implies at least some degree of robustness, because for a typical genotype some mutations must leave the phenotype unchanged. This connectedness also suggests evolvability, because many new phenotypes might be produced by single mutations if a phenotype has many different genotypes that adopt it (Huynen 1996; Ciliberti et al. 2007b; Sumedha et al. 2007).
Thus from one perspective, robustness hinders evolvability. From another perspective, robustness promotes evolvability. I here show how this apparent paradoxical tension can be resolved. To this end, I use RNA secondary structure as a study system. RNA secondary structure is an important phenotype in its own right, because it is required for the biological function of many RNA molecules (Dayton et al. 1992; Baudin et al. 1993; Powell et al. 1995). Because computationally efficient algorithms exist to predict RNA secondary structure from an RNA sequence (Zuker & Sankoff 1984; Hofacker et al. 1994; Tacker et al. 1996), RNA secondary structure has proven to be an important computational model to understand how genetic variation maps into phenotypic (structural) variation (Schuster et al. 1994; Reidys et al. 1997; Fontana & Schuster 1998; Fontana 2002). The biological relevance and computational tractability of RNA structure allow one to explore the relationship between robustness and evolvability. The insights thus obtained may inform our thinking for many other biological systems that are less tractable.
One might argue that the above notion of evolvability, focusing only on variation is not sufficiently ambitious. A more expansive definition might involve the ability of a phenotype or genotype to produce new and desirable phenotypes, evolutionary innovations. In reality, evolutionary innovations are obvious only in hindsight. However, one can specify a closely related measure of evolvability in a computational analysis by asking how easily a blind random walk starting from a given phenotype can find a pre-defined but otherwise arbitrary 'target' phenotype. I show that this notion of evolvability is independent of robustness, and may depend very little on properties of the starting phenotype.
To resolve the tension between robustness and evolvability, I first recast definitions of robustness and evolvability in terms of RNA genotypes and phenotypes. The relevant genotype space is the set of all 4n possible RNA sequences of some given length n. Two sequences are 1-mutant neighbours or simply neighbours in this space if they differ in one nucleotide. The relevant phenotypes are the set of all possible RNA structures, whose number scales approximately as 1.8n (Gruner et al. 1996; Schuster 2003). The set of all genotypes forming the same structure is often called a neutral set or, when connected in genotype space, a neutral network (Schuster et al. 1994). A neutral neighbour of a sequence is a neighbour that has the same structure. I define the 1-neighbourhood of a structure or, equivalently, the 1-neighbourhood of a neutral network as follows: it is the set of sequences that differ from the sequences that fold into the structure by exactly one nucleotide. With these notations, I now introduce two different definitions of robustness and evolvability.
Below, I will show that the tension between robustness and evolvability disappears with the distinction just introduced. Specifically, genotypic robustness is negatively associated with genotypic evolvability, whereas phenotypic robustness is positively associated with phenotypic evolvability. Note that sequence robustness and structure robustness cannot be meaningfully compared to one another and neither can sequence evolvability and structure evolvability. Also note that the above definitions of evolvability are special cases of the more general definition in the introduction. A sequence that is more evolvable has more structural variants in its 1-neighbourhood. Similarly, a structure that is more evolvable has more structural variants in its 1-neighbourhood.
For reasons detailed in the methods (electronic supplementary material), I focus throughout on random RNA sequences of length n=30, which strikes a balance between structural richness and computational tractability. Biological RNAs are currently not suitable for this analysis, owing to the necessity of analysing many different structures of the same length and the unsolved problem of estimating the abundance or frequency f of a given structure. This frequency is defined as the number of sequences adopting the structure. In protein engineering, it is also known as a structure's designability.
It is well known that the distribution of structure frequencies is highly skewed (Hofacker et al. 1998; Schuster 2003). That is, there are relatively few structures adopted by many sequences, but many structures adopted by few sequences. Figure 1a shows the distribution of structure frequencies for a sample of 106 RNA sequences. Structure frequencies in this sample vary over a factor 1600, from less than 1.06×10−6 (structures found only once) to 1.7×10−3.
A sequence G's mutational robustness RG and the number of sequences in the 1-neighbourhood of G whose structure is different from that of G are trivially and inversely related, i.e. this number is equal to 3n−RG. But what is the relationship between RG and the number of structures in the 1-neighbourhood of a sequence that are unique, i.e. different from both the structure of G and from each other? To find out, I determined the number U of unique structures that are different from one another in the neighbourhood of G. To obtain this number, I counted all structures in the neighbourhood, but counted structures only once that occurred twice or more. By the above definition of sequence evolvability, EG=U. To normalize for sequence length, one can also consider the normalized robustness rG=RG/3n, and eG, an appropriately normalized analogue of U. Starting from U, however, there are two different ways of normalization to obtain the proportion of unique structures. The first approach is to divide U by the number 3n(1−rG), i.e. by the total number of sequences in the neighbourhood of G that have structures different from the structure of G. The statistical association between rG and U/3n(1−rG) is weak, although highly significant in a large sample of sequences (Spearman's s=−0.06, p<10−17; sample size nS=7.5×104). It is perhaps remarkable that the association is negative despite the fact that robustness exerts a positive influence on eG merely through this normalization: the higher rG, the smaller (1−rG) and therefore the greater U/3n(1−rG).
The second approach to normalize and obtain the proportion of unique structures from U is to divide U simply by 3n, the total number of sequences in the neighbourhood of G. Arguably, this approach is more sensible, because it reflects the likelihood that a new structure is encountered in a blind evolutionary exploration of the neighbourhood of G. Figure 1b shows the association between this measure of evolvability eG=U/3n and rG for 7.5×104 sequences whose structures span three orders of magnitude in frequency. The two quantities are highly negatively correlated with mutational robustness (Spearman's s=−0.64, p<10−17; nS=7.5×104). The dashed line in the figure indicates 1−rG, the fraction of sequences with structures different from that of G. The discrepancy between this dashed line and the data indicates that many structures different from that of G are not different from each other, otherwise the data would fall on the dashed line. The data shown in figure 1b is an average over structures with different frequencies.
Earlier work (Ancel & Fontana 2000) showed—for a given structure—a negative association between mutational robustness of sequences folding into the structure and the structural repertoire found in a sequence neighbourhood. In contrast, the data shown in figure 1b are based on sequences that were inversely folded from many structures with widely varying frequencies. This raises the question of whether structure frequency has any influence on the relationship between rG and eG. I addressed this question by determining a partial correlation coefficient between rG and eG that holds the structure frequency constant. The strongly negative association persists when we control in this way for structure frequency (Partial product–moment correlation coefficient r=−0.65, p<0.01; nS=7.5×104). This means that structure frequency does not have a strong influence on the negative association between rG and eG. In sum, the greater a sequence's robustness, the lesser its evolvability.
By the above definition, the robustness RP of a phenotype (structure) P is the average number of neutral neighbours of all sequences with phenotype P, or their proportion rP=RP/3n. The corresponding measure of evolvability EP is the total number of structures different from P in the 1-neighbourhood of P.
Because neutral networks are so vast, neither robustness RP nor evolvability EP can be determined exactly. For example, in a sample of 106 sequences of length n=30 nucleotides, the rarest structures are those that are found only once in the sample. Their frequency in sequence space cannot be estimated accurately from a sample of this size. However, any structure whose unique occurrence in such a sample is a reflection of its true frequency, e.g. a structure where f=10−6, would still be adopted by approximately 10−6×4n≈1012 sequences. In other words, even the rarest phenotypes in a large sample of sequence may be adopted by many sequences. Although this prevents the determination of robustness RP and evolvability EP through exhaustive enumeration, a sampling approach can still be used to estimate these quantities. That is, one can inversely fold a sample of sequences with phenotype P and determine RP in this sample. Similarly, one can determine for such a sample the number U of unique structures; that is, structures different from each other and from P. I emphasize that this is not simply the number of unique structures in the 1-neighbourhood of each sequence, added over all sequences in the sample. The reason is that the 1-neighbourhoods of two different sequences in the sample may contain sequences folding into identical structures. Instead, one needs to count structures that occur in the 1-neighbourhood of two or more sequences only once.
Because structure evolvability depends on the size of a neutral network, the resulting number U then still needs to be multiplied by an estimate of the total size of a neutral network, such as the structure frequency f. In other words, eP will be monotonically increasing with Uf, although this relationship is not necessarily linear. Figure 2a shows the relationship between phenotype robustness rP and Uf (a proxy for eP) based on 2.5×104 structures, and on 100 randomly sampled sequences from each structure's neutral network. Structure robustness and evolvability show a strong positive association (Spearman's s=0.55, p<10−17; nS=2.5×104).
To understand this positive association, several observations are germane. First, the higher a structure's frequency, the higher its robustness (Spearman's s=0.64, p<10−17; nS=2.5×104; see figure S1 in the electronic supplementary material). When a neutral network is viewed as a graph, this observation simply states that the average number of neutral neighbours of a typical genotype G on the network increases with the size of the neutral network. It also means that the greater the structure frequency f, the more sequences in the 1-neighbourhood of any one sequence G will have the same structure as G. Conversely, the greater the structure frequency f is, the smaller the proportion of the neighbours of any one G that will have unique and different structures.
Next, the structures found in the neighbourhoods of two or more different sequences are typically very different from each other. To see this, consider the total number of different structures found in the 1-neighbourhood of a set of sequences (G1,…,Gk) sampled from a neutral network with structure frequency f. Denote the set of structures that are different from each other in the 1-neighbourhood of Gi as {Ui} and the size of this set as |Ui|. When one compares two different sets, say {Ui} and {Uj}, there are two extreme possibilities and a wide spectrum in between: all of these structures could be identical, i.e. {Ui}∩{Uj}={Ui}={Uj}, or all of these sequences could be different, i.e. {Ui}∩{Uj}=. The truth is closer to the second extreme, as illustrated by the following analysis. Consider the quantity
where k is some number of sequences sampled from the neutral network of a given structure. This quantity is the proportion of unique structures in the 1-neighbourhood of Gi, averaged over all k sampled sequences. Next consider the quantity
which is the total number of structures different from each other found in the neighbourhood of all k-sampled sequences divided by the total number of sequences examined, that is, k times 3n, because each of the k sequences has 3n neighbours. Of interest is the ratio of (3.1) and (3.2), that is
If the structures found in the neighbourhood of two sequences are very similar, then Q1, because in that case for every i, which does not depend on k, and Q would thus approach zero with increasing k. For example, for the k=100 sequences sampled here, one would then expect that Q≈0.01. If, however, all the structures found in the neighbourhood of two sequences are different from each other, then Q would be of the order 1.
Figure 2b shows the distribution of Q for 2.5×104 structures. The median of this distribution is equal to 0.6, or 60-fold greater than the case where the structures found in the neighbourhoods of two sequences are identical. This means that most structures that occur in the neighbourhoods of different sequences along a neutral network are different from each other. For sequences that are not randomly sampled, but encountered along a random walk along a neutral network, this has been shown previously (Huynen 1996; Sumedha et al. 2007).
Because most structures in the 1-neighbourhoods of different sequences in a neutral network are different from each other, the size of a neutral network has an important influence on structure-based evolvability. Specifically, even though the number of structures found in the 1-neighbourhood of any one sequence decreases modestly with increasing neutral network size (see figure S1 in the electronic supplementary material), this decrease is much smaller than the increase in the number of different structures accessible from a much larger neutral network. In addition, the ratio Q increases modestly with structure frequency (figure 2c; Spearman's s=0.11, p<10−17; nS=2.5×104). This means that the larger a neutral network is, the more distinct the structures found in the 1-neighbourhoods of sequences sampled from the neutral network.
A final observation useful to understand figure 2a emerges from a comparison between structure frequencies and sequence robustness. For any sequence of length n, the number of neighbours with the same MFE structure can vary between 0 and 3n. In contrast, the number of sequences folding into a given structure can vary over a much broader range, from zero to a fraction of a per cent of the total number of sequences, i.e. of the order of the number 4n of sequences itself. This discrepancy appears even in modestly sized samples of sequences. For example, figure 2d shows the mutational robustness, normalized to (0,1), for a sample of 7.5×104 sequences whose structure frequencies vary over the same range as that in figure 1, i.e. by a factor 1600. In contrast, mutational robustness in this sample varies only by a factor 37. In other words, even in this modest sample of sequences, structure frequencies are more than 40 times more variable than mutational robustness.
In sum, the positive association between phenotype robustness and evolvability can be explained as follows. First, the number of genotypes folding into any one structure can vary by many orders of magnitude, whereas mutational robustness among sequences of similar lengths varies more modestly. Next, most structures found near two or more sequences sampled from the same neutral network are different from each other. Thus, even though structure robustness increases modestly with structure frequency, this increase is much smaller than the vast increase in the number of different structures accessible found near a much larger neutral network.
Neutral networks are vast in size and a finite population may take a very long time to explore such networks and all the structures in their neighbourhoods. It is thus important to show that robustness also affects evolvability on short time scales in finite populations. To determine whether this is the case, I first chose two different structures, one with high frequency (f≈10−3) and thus high robustness, and the other with low frequency and low robustness (f≈10−6). I then inversely folded 20 sequences for each of these structures. For each of the 40(=2×20) sequences, I then established a population of N=500 identical sequences. Each population then underwent repeated rounds of mutation (one nucleotide per sequence generation) and selection that confined the population to the neutral network. That is, in each generation, mutants that were no longer on the neutral network were eliminated and replaced by randomly sampled mutants (with replacement) that still resided on the network. After each such round of mutation and selection, I determined the total number of unique structures found in the neighbourhood of the entire population. The results show that the more robust phenotypes can access much more variation in their evolution on a neutral network (figure 3a). For example, after a mere 10 generations, the neighbourhoods of the population on the large network contain 2118 (±362 s.e.m.) unique structures. In contrast, the neighbourhood of the populations on the small network contains merely 874 different (±148 s.e.m.) structures.
How can an evolving population with a robust phenotype access more variation, despite the fact that each individual typically has fewer unique structures in its neighbourhood? The answer is that the populations with the highly robust phenotype are more diverse, and this increased diversity is much greater than the decreased diversity around any one sequence. Figure 3b shows the number of different sequences for each population and figure 3c shows the mean Hamming distance of the sequences from each other. For both measures, the population with the robust phenotype rapidly accumulates greater diversity. But why is this increased sequence diversity observed in the first place? The reason is simply that in each generation, mutations kill fewer sequences with a more robust phenotype. Assume, for example, that in a population sequences have average robustness rG. Then, a number of individuals proportional to (1−rG) will be eliminated in every generation as a result of mutations. Populations of sequences with greater robustness (lower 1−rG) can thus accumulate greater diversity.
These observations are not peculiarities of the two structures I used. I repeated this approach with inversely folded sequences derived from 4×103 different structures, each of which was used to seed an evolving population. Figure 3d shows the number of unique structures in the neighbourhood of these 4×103 populations after 10 generations of mutation and selection. There is a modest but highly significant positive association between the structure frequency and the amount of phenotypic variation accessible to these structures. Populations with more frequent and thus more robust phenotypes thus have access to more phenotypic variation.
I note that these results would be qualitatively the same if I had not used 'soft' selection, where population sizes are held constant but 'hard' selection, in which population sizes are allowed to fluctuate. The reason is that in this case, populations evolving on small neutral networks would simply shrink faster over time than those on large neutral networks and show lower sequence diversity for this reason.
In the above analysis, mutations occurred at a rate of μ=1 per sequence per generation, such that the population mutation rate is Nμ1. The evolutionary dynamics in populations with Nμ1 is fundamentally different from that in populations with Nμ1 (Kimura 1983; van Nimwegen et al. 1999; Wagner 2005). Specifically, large populations or populations with high mutation rates are likely to be polymorphic in any given generation, and their members accumulate over time in regions of a neutral network where genotypes show high genotypic robustness. In contrast, in populations where Nμ1, populations are monomorphic most of the time, and they perform a random walk on a neutral network that samples the network uniformly. Given these differences, it is necessary to show that the greater structural diversity accessible to populations with robust phenotypes does not occur only when Nμ1.
When Nμ1, two populations differing in the robustness of their phenotypes cannot have access to dramatically different structural variation in any given generation. The reason is that in most generations, both populations will be monomorphic; that is, all of their members have identical genotypes. However, the likelihood that a mutation is deleterious is smaller in populations with more robust phenotypes. This suggests that such populations can explore the neutral network faster also when Nμ1 and thus encounter—over time—more structural variation. Figure 3e shows that this is indeed the case. The figure is based on populations that were initialized with a single randomly chosen member from a neutral network, and that evolved via selection and mutation, just like in figure 3a, but with Nμ1 (N=10; μ=0.01). The x-axis indicates the number of generations. The y-axis indicates the cumulative number of unique structures that the population encountered in its 1-neighbourhood since generation zero. This cumulative number is obtained by recording all the genotypes on the neutral network that have occurred in the population since generation zero, and by determining the number of unique structures in their 1-neighbourhood (counting each structure that occurs in the 1-neighbourhood of two different genotypes only once). Clearly, populations with more robust phenotypes encounter greater structural diversity along their evolutionary path. Also, both the cumulative sequence diversity and the cumulative number of different sequences encountered during an evolutionary trajectory are larger in populations with robust phenotypes (results not shown). And again, these observations are not artefacts of the two phenotypes chosen: there is a positive association between the structure frequency and the structural diversity a small population encounters during its evolution (figure 3f).
In sum, in populations with both Nμ1 and Nμ1, an evolving population with a robust phenotype accesses more variation along its evolutionary path on a neutral network. The reasons are fundamentally the same, namely that the mutations are less likely to have deleterious effects for robust phenotypes, and thus allow more rapid exploration of a neutral network.
A definition of evolvability that focuses only on the variation directly accessible from a given genotype G or phenotype P may seem limited. It does not address how a blind evolutionary search driven by mutations would find a phenotype (structure) that is not in the immediate neighbourhood of G or P, but an arbitrary distance away from it. Some genotypes G or phenotypes P might be more amenable to finding such arbitrary target phenotypes, and thus be more evolvable in this sense. If so, how is this kind of evolvability related to genotypic or phenotypic robustness?
To address this question, I pursued an approach that started with a set of 7.5×104 random RNA structures that span three orders of magnitude in structure frequency.
I drew pairs of structures (S,T) at random from this set (with replacement). For each such pair, I inversely folded a sequence G with structure S. From the starting sequence, I then performed a random walk towards the target structure T. Specifically, each step of this random walk consisted in a random change of a single nucleotide. If the mutation had not increased the Hamming distance to T, then the random walk was continued with the mutated sequence; otherwise, the original sequence was mutated again. This process was repeated until a sequence with an MFE structure T was obtained. The number of mutational steps needed to get to the target structure T can be used as a measure of evolvability.
Figure 4a shows that sequence robustness is only marginally associated with evolvability in this sense (Spearman's s=0.01, p=0.016; nS=3.7×104). What other factors might influence the length of this random walk? One candidate factor is the frequency of the starting structure S. This frequency is associated with the size of the sequence space that can be explored while staying on a neutral network. However, it is not associated with the length of this random walk either (Spearman's s=0.006, p>0.05; nS=3.7×104).
Another candidate factor is the structure distance between the starting and the target structures. It might take longer to reach a given target structure if this structure is very dissimilar from the starting structure. However, two different structure distance measures are only weakly associated with the length of this random walk (Hamming distance: Spearman's s=0.03, p=8×10−7; nS=3.7×104; base pair distance, the number of base pairs that need to be opened or closed to transform one structure into the other: Spearman's s=−0.07, p<10−17; nS=3.7×104). The only variable that is moderately associated with walk length is the frequency of the target structure (figure 4b; Spearman's s=−0.21, p<10−17; nS=3.7×104). This means that regardless of the starting structure S, it is more difficult for a blind evolutionary search to get to a target structure T if this structure is rare.
Evolvability defined as the length of a random walk starting from a given sequence is a form of sequence evolvability. An analogous measure of structure evolvability can be defined as the average length of a random walk starting from a given structure S to a target structure T. This measure of evolvability, however, is also not associated with mutational robustness, when estimated for k=100 inversely folded sequences with structure S (Spearman's s=−0.04, p>0.05; nS=910). Also it is not associated with the structure frequency of S (s=−0.014, p>0.05; nS=910). The association between the length of this random walk and the distance between S and T is weak and depends on the distance measure used (Hamming: s=−0.096, p=0.004; base pair distance: s=−0.04, p>0.05; nS=910). Again, the only feature of some relevance is the frequency of the target structure T (s=−0.34, p<10−17; nS=910).
The reason why the starting sequence may be irrelevant for the length of this random walk becomes obvious if one asks how many different structures the random walk encounters between S and T. A histogram of this distribution is shown in figure 4c. The median (mean) of the distribution is 63 (121) with a 10th percentile at 19 structures. Thus, an evolutionary search starting at S traverses many other structures before arriving at T. Arguably, during this search, the properties of the starting structure may matter much less than the properties of the structures encountered during the search. Robustness and evolvability are also not associated if one restricts the analysis to random walks that traverse fewer than 10 (Spearman's s=0.04, p>0.05; nS=745) or fewer than 5 structures (Spearman's s=0.11, p>0.05; nS=84) before arriving at T. This implies that the properties of the starting point are rapidly 'forgotten' in an evolutionary search.
In sum, a highly robust RNA genotype has low evolvability. In contrast, a highly robust phenotype has high evolvability. This positive association is caused by (i) the vastly larger neutral networks (more sequences) associated with mutationally robust phenotypes and (ii) the different structures occurring in the neighbourhoods of two or more sequences sampled from a neutral network. This synergism between robustness and evolvability manifests itself in populations of genotypes spreading on a neutral network. On a large neutral network, such populations have on average higher robustness. They thus suffer lower losses through mutations, which allow them to accumulate greater genotypic diversity. In consequence, they can access greater phenotypic diversity in their neighbourhood.
I have explored robustness and evolvability for a specific genotype and phenotype, RNA and its secondary structure. However, at least the genotypic and phenotypic notions of robustness I use here can be applied to systems on all levels of organization, ranging from molecules to whole organisms. The reason is that for many systems, the same phenotypes can be achieved by vast numbers of genotypes (Wagner 2005). Take the example of gene regulation circuits, like Hox genes guiding axial development in many animals (Carroll et al. 2001). They can be characterized according to a regulatory genotype that indicates which circuit genes interact. This genotype is encoded by DNA sequences that comprise both the gene coding regions and their regulatory regions on DNA, promoters and enhancers. The phenotype of such a circuit corresponds to a spatio-temporal expression pattern of circuit genes in response to some 'input' from genes upstream of the circuit. Clearly, any one phenotype can be adopted by many genotypes, partly because regulatory DNA is very flexible in its organization. Recent work suggests that in such circuits the same phenotypes can also be realized by vastly different numbers of genotypes (Ciliberti et al. 2007a,b). As in the case of RNA, genotypic robustness and evolvability are properties of one specific genotype, whereas phenotypic robustness and evolvability are properties of all genotypes with the same phenotype. To determine whether phenotypic robustness and evolvability go hand in hand also in such circuits is an important task for future work.
Whether to focus on genotype or phenotype when studying robustness and evolvability is to some extent a matter of taste. There is only one reason to prefer phenotypes. On evolutionary time scales, genotypes change constantly, and are thus a moving target for studies of robustness and evolvability. Phenotypes, however, can stay invariant over short and intermediate evolutionary time scales, if their conservation is important to the organism. To study evolvability of phenotypes—RNA and protein conformations, circuit gene expression patterns, etc.—may thus be of greater relevance for processes that take place on evolutionary time scales.
The observations made here suggest that a measure of phenotypic entropy, as defined below, plays a positive role in evolution. Common wisdom in biology holds that living things and the molecules therein are highly ordered and exceedingly unlikely constellations of matter. Cast in the metaphor of sequence space, nucleic acids and proteins that can perform any given function occupy exceedingly small regions in this space. From a thermodynamic perspective, such molecules show low information entropy (high information content) in sequence space: only a few strings of nucleotides or amino acids can adopt their conformation. More precisely, and expressed in terms of information content, consider that to specify any nucleotide sequence of length n, one needs log2(4n)=2n bits. To specify a sequence that folds into a given structure, one needs log2(4n/(f4n))=−log2(f) bits, where f is the proportion of the 4n sequences that fold into the structure, or an average of −log2(f)/n bits per residue. A structure with low information entropy has a small f. Although it may be true that molecular phenotypes with any given function generally have small entropy, it is equally clear that the distribution of f among different phenotypes is very broad (figure 1a). The observations made here suggest that among all different phenotypes that can perform a given function, those with large f may show the highest evolvability. In other words, highly entropic phenotypes are more evolvable. This positive role of entropy in facilitating evolvability stands in contrast to the generally negative role entropy and disorder are held to play throughout biology.
This work leaves three important open questions. First, how robust and evolvable are biologically important phenotypes, such as RNA structures? To answer this question is currently impossible, because it requires the ability to estimate phenotype frequencies for many phenotypes. Partly owing to the vastness of genotype space, no reliable and tractable method to do this is currently available. Second, how general is the positive association between phenotypic robustness and evolvability that I showed for RNA structures? Does it occur in many other biological systems? Third, this work does not ask about the evolutionary forces that might cause high evolvability, of which there may be many (Gerhart & Kirschner 1998; Schlosser & Wagner 2004; Bloom et al. 2006). There are two principal possibilities. High evolvability might be an adaptation in its own right, or a by-product of other selective pressures. A good candidate for such a selective pressure is natural selection for mutational robustness or thermodynamic stability, which are positively associated (Ancel & Fontana 2000). A small number of studies suggest that biological evolution has produced RNA molecules with high genotypic or phenotypic robustness (Wagner & Stadler 1999; Meyers et al. 2004; Borenstein & Ruppin 2006; Sanjuan et al. 2006). Although high phenotypic evolvability could be a by-product of selection for high phenotypic robustness, the question whether this is generally the case remains to be resolved.
I am grateful for support through grant 315200-116814 from the Swiss National Foundation, as well as for support from the Santa Fe Institute.
PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
At Culips, we always try to focus on the details and get everything right for you! The expressions in this episode are used to talk about analyzing and examining things, checking for information, or making sure that everything is perfect. Of course, at Culips, we like to dot our i's and cross our t's! Listen to this episode to learn about this expression and others that mean to look very carefully at something. If you're a member, you can also go over this episode with a fine-tooth comb by reviewing the transcript!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Expressions included in the learning materials
- Sugar cream pie
- Original and unique
- You can't complain
- To dot your i's and cross your t's
- Handwriting
- To double-check
- To go over something with a fine-tooth comb
- Comb
- Lice
- To bring something home
- To dissect something
- Dissections in biology class
- Metaphors and stanzas
For a complete transcript, click:
Sample transcript
Maura: That is right. And Harp, how are you feeling today?
Harp: You know, I'm really good. But I'm so full.
Maura: I bet I know why you're full. We just had pie.
Harp: I know. Why did I take that second piece though?
Maura: Because it was so good. And Harp, you brought such an interesting flavour tonight.
Harp: Yeah. It was kinda different. It had apples and pears and cranberries.
Maura: And then there's also a kind of pie that's very popular in Quebec called sugar cream pie. And they had bits of sugar cream in the pie, too.
Harp: Really, it was pretty intense. It was a flavour explosion.
Maura: Yeah. It was original and unique. But you can't complain. It's a pie; it's gotta be good, right?
Harp: Yes. Next time I'll only have one piece though.
Maura: All right. Let's get to today's episode. Today we're doing a Catch Word episode, and that is where we talk about different related expressions. Of course, we tell you what they mean, how you can use them, and we give you examples.
Harp: Yes. So let's get started. Today we're looking at expressions that mean to review something very carefully.
Maura: That's right. So all today's expressions are talking about looking at something in a very detailed manner. This means to be meticulous or thorough, which just means that you're looking very carefully at something.
Harp: Let's get started with the first expression.
Maura: The first expression is to dot your i's and cross your t's.
Harp: Yes. To dot your i's and cross your t's.
Maura: Now, this expression is kind of long and could be confusing, so let's say it a couple more times. To dot your i's and cross your t's.
Harp: To dot your i's and cross your t's.
Maura: Now the first thing that's worth mentioning: in this expression, when we say i's, we're not talking about the word that's spelled E-Y-E-S, like the two eyes in your head. It's the plural of the letter i. And when we talk about t's, we're not talking about that great drink, a cup of tea. We're actually talking about the letter t, and that is also plural, when we say t's.
Harp: Yes, so to dot your i's and cross your t's; we're talking about the letters i and t.
Maura: Now, this expression means to review something carefully, to go over something in a very detailed way in order to make sure that you don't have any mistakes. So with this expression, you're checking something carefully to make sure that there isn't an error and to make sure that you finished it well.
Harp: Yes. So when you say to dot your i's and cross your t's, you're carefully going over your work to make sure that there are no mistakes, there are no errors, everything is perfect.
Maura: Right. This could be for written work, or it could be for a project, or a presentation, any kind of work that has been or is almost completed.
Harp: Yes. To dot your i's and cross your t's. It's something you do at the end, when your work is being finished. It's your final check before you hand in a project or before you're finished a presentation.
Maura: Now this expression is related to cursive handwriting. And this is a style of writing where all of the letters of your word are connected together, so as you're writing, you don't have to lift your pen and pencil. Also, when you're writing like this, you might write the letter i or the letter t, and when you get to the end of the word, you have to go back to dot the i and cross the t.
Harp: I remember being young and learning handwriting and having to go back and cross the t, make sure all the i's were dotted, so I see where this expression comes from.
Maura: Right. Sometimes when we're writing really fast and we have a lot of ideas, we might forget to dot an i or cross a t when we're writing, and so, at the end of something that you've written, it's a good idea to check and make sure that you've dotted your i's and crossed your t's. That's where this expression comes from. But now, it's not speaking specifically about the letter i and the letter t, it just means that you're checking over your work to make sure there are no mistakes.
Harp: Yes. You go back, you read over what you've written or you look at the project that you've completed to make sure that there are no mistakes, there are no errors.
Audio/Learning Materials: Culips


text:
How the Citizens United Decision is Helping Chemical Companies Squash Efforts to Assess Cancer Risks With Common Household Items
Big chemical companies are quietly buying campaign ads that are polluting the airwaves in a bid to convince Congress not to regulate carcinogenic chemicals or not take other actions to protect health and the environment. The ads have appeared in districts of lawmakers who are poised to impact legislation to overhaul health and environmental standards. You won't find these ads disclosed on the Federal Elections Commission website. But they are the latest example of how corporate money continues to flood into the election system.
While chemical company influence in government is nothing new, the corporate-funded ad spending indicates that the industry is moving to take full advantage of the new campaign finance landscape made possible by the Supreme Court. A string of decisions, from Wisconsin Right To Life to Citizens United, opened the door for businesses to airs unlimited ads supporting or opposing political candidates.
Since March of last year, the American Chemistry Council has aired at least $2.2 million dollars worth of ads promoting members of Congress. The commercials follow a cookie-cutter script, hailing the members for "working to protect and create jobs." The Council is a lobby group financed by chemical firms like Dow Corning, DuPont, ExxonMobil Chemical Company, and BASF.
Watch one the ads below:
Like many other corporate interests seeking fund campaign advertising, chemical companies are using a 501(c)(6) trade association to air the ads, rather than branding the commercials "brought to you DuPont" or another company. In this regard, the American Chemical Council is following the pattern set forth by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, another corporate-funded lobbying front that is aggressively airing political ads. Unlike the Chamber though, the chemical industry aired its ads outside the FEC's "electioneering" window, meaning that it is almost impossible to find disclosures.
As E&E Daily notes, the Council ads are part of a larger lobbying campaign against legislative efforts to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and "require manufacturers to prove their substances are safe before they go to market." The chemical lobby is also fighting regulatory efforts to assess the health effects of bisphenol A (BPA), styrene, formaldehyde and dioxin, four widely used chemicals that have been associated with cancer. As Republic Report's Suzanne Merkelson has reported, BPA, which is found in many household products, is also linked to erectile dysfunction and miscarriages. Here's a list of the chemicals and where you can find them:
— Styrene is commonly found in "white foam coffee cups and food containers and is widely used in building materials." The greatest cancer risk to the public is from breathing the chemical indoors in places where styrene is used as a building material.
— Formaldehyde, which has been linked to leukemia, is used in some industrial processes, as well as building materials, funeral homes, and some hair treatment products.
— BPA is found in a number of home goods, particularly in most canned food products. BPA is linked to breast and prostate cancer, infertility, type-2 diabetes, obesity and ADHD.
The ads benefit lawmakers with sway over chemical laws. The Council's ads support Congressmen Ed Whitfield (R-KY) and John Shimkus (R-IL), both of whom are chairmen of subcommittees that oversee environmental standards. Congressman Mike Simpson (R-ID), a beneficiary of over $140,000 in Council ads, chairs a panel that sets the budget for environmental agencies. Democrats have benefited as well. The Council aired at least $350,000 in ads promoting Congressman Gene Green (D-TX), the ranking member of an environmental subcommittee. The ad campaign has covered 9 other members of Congress, in addition to general ads attacking President Obama's EPA policies.
The ads appear to be working. As chemical companies ramp up their registered lobbying, PAC donations, and for the first time, an advertising campaign made possible by loosened campaign finance rules, bills like Senator Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) Safe Chemicals Act appear to have stalled.
Cal Dooley, the former Democratic congressman who now serves as head of the American Chemistry Council and thus the chief lobbyist for the chemical industry, says the industry now pouring money into social media as well.
The chemical lobby experimented with direct corporate electioneering for the first time in 2010. During the campaign, the American Chemistry Council purchased ads to boost Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who was running in a special election to fill the seat of the late Robert Byrd. In previous elections, chemical companies were limited to strict campaign contribution limits. But the pro-Manchin ads in 2010 were purchased with direct corporate money through the American Chemistry Council. According to disclosure reports, the Council spent $225,000 in independent expenditure advertisements for Manchin.
The decision by chemical companies to spend corporate cash in congressional elections seems to be paying off. Just last month, Senator Manchin helped keynote an American Chemistry Council event to urge President Obama to promote more natural gas production. And the latest election ads seem to be working as well; Congress is punting on efforts to label and regulate carcinogenic chemicals in everyday American products.
Pingback: Congressmen Fulfill Lobbyist Request, File Letter Requesting Carcinogenic Chemicals In Their Own Buildings()
Pingback: Who Else Needs a Can Safe ? | Personal Protection()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Read More()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: gsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfg()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: Trackback()
Pingback: scnkgrfmstngjsngmgcrthv()
Pingback: svsjgvgvbbvcfncggjkdf()
Pingback: gxcrcfgrtgsgabdjnhacfg()
Pingback: Love Letters For Him()
Pingback: how to kill bed bugs()
Pingback: best garcinia cambogia extract pure()
Pingback: best fat burner dr oz()
Pingback: Celebrity Wallpapers()
Pingback: may day history()
Pingback: Cheap home insurance()
Pingback: cheape insurance quotes()
Pingback: best car insurance companies()
Pingback: motorcycle storage tent()
Pingback: hepsia control panel()
Pingback: HotCouponsCodes.com()
Pingback: gaincreditscore.com()
Pingback: soba recovery center reviews()
Pingback: option strategy()
Pingback: options trading for dummies()
Pingback: dr. lo beaumont tx()
Pingback: advanced trading signal system()
Pingback: colon cleanse pills()
Pingback: travel()
Pingback: chiropractor amherst()
Pingback: alternative breast�cancer�treatment natural cure()
Pingback: best garcinia cambogia supplement()
Pingback: free directory()
Pingback: garcinia cambogia and colon cleanse dr oz()
Pingback: Nationwide insurance()
Pingback: top rated e cigarettes()
Pingback: where to buy e cigs()


text:
List all words ending with shitted
2 words found.
List all words ending with shitted, sorted by length or by how common the words are.
Some random words: dals chablis ireful do ngultrum chablis obscene
This is not a dictionary, it's a word game wordfinder.
- Help and FAQ - Examples - Home
Privacy and Cookies Policy - Share - © Copyright 2004-2017 Morewords.com - 71.549mS


text:
House Democrats pushing what they call the "Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2015″ are stooping to outright lies in order to fabricate a need for their legislation.
The bill is ironically offered by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings
(D-Maryland), who has done everything in his power to assist the Obama
Administration's stonewalling of the House Oversight Commitee's
investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, one of up to ten
gun-walking plots carried out by Obama's Department of Justice and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
The gentleman at Sipsey Street started referring to him as Bloody-Hands Cummings, due to his apparent lack of care for how many people died due to ATF actions, his only concern seeming to be protecting ATF and Holder from actually paying any price for said actions.
You'll notice Cummings & Co. and ATF are now saying
In March, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reported
that more than 100,000 guns were recovered in Mexico and submitted for
tracing from 2009 to 2014. Of those, 70% originated in the United
So they're down from "90% of cartel guns come from the US!" Still full of shit, but I guess they decided they couldn't sell the larger number anymore.


text:
Western Washington Guided Hunts
Roosevelt Elk • Black Tail Deer
We invite you to come and hunt the beautiful Pacific Northwest region. Located in the coastal area of western Washington state where the Olympic and Cascade Mountains are famous for their thriving game populations including Roosevelt Elk and Columbia Blacktail Deer. Our private land leases, located in areas literally infested with elk and deer, guarantee quality hunting and a memorable experience. Hunters of all ages will appreciate the ease of hunting at 500 feet in elevation from comfortable blinds or stands. Everyone is sure to enjoy the comfortable camps, tasty home cooking, and camaraderie of your guides and fellow hunters. Whether you are interested in hunting elk or deer, prefer to be fully guided or semi-guided, or choose to hunt with a bow, rifle, or muzzleloader, Olympic Mountain Outfitters provides hunts that meet our clients expectations year after year. Your host, Mike Vaughn, is also a licensed taxidermist so you can leave your trophy with us to be mounted and shipped or picked up at one of the hunting and outdoor shows we attend across the country.
The following video documents Washington State's Lieutenant Governor, Brad Owen, successful Roosevelt Elk harvest.
All Tags Guaranteed
We invite you to ask the questions many other outfitters hate to hear such as: What is your success rate with a bow, rifle, or muzzleloader? What is the cost of your hunting license? Do we have to draw a license? How is the terrain and weather? And many more. We are confident that you have found what you are looking for here at Olympic Mountain Outfitters: Affordable high successes fair chase hunts, free from other hunters including wolves, with plenty of good food and good times.
Please call for a list of references
Please take a few minutes to check out our website and learn more about our hunts and services. Feel free to email or call if you have any questions or would like to reserve a spot on this years hunt schedule. We look forward to hearing from you and the opportunity to host your hunt.
Sincerely, Mike Vaughn, Olympic Mountain Outfitters
Know more about us and our services
Guided Hunts & Guaranteed Tags
Are you ready to hunt in the picturesque Pacific Northwest? Olympic Mountain Outfitters makes it easy! With our full array of Western Washington Guided Hunts, we help you find the hunt of your dreams in just minutes. With hunts nestled in the Cascade and Olympic Mountains, and many other stunning areas nearby—we are the only choice when you're in need of an outfitter you can rely on.
Olympic Mountain Outfitters Has Guided Hunts Including:
- Guided Elk Hunts
- Guided Deer Hunts
- Semi-Guided Hunts
When you choose Olympic Mountain outfitters, we give you many options to work with your skill level and hunting goals. If you're new to hunting, we offer tips so you understand proper technique and safety when you head out on one of our guided hunts. For the more experienced outdoorsman, we have semi-guided hunts. This option allows you to go on a elk hunts on your terms. No matter what you prefer, we have many options for every hunter.
Bow Hunts, Rifle Hunts, Muzzleloader Hunts
When it's time for your semi guided hunting experience or one of our guided elk hunts or guided deer hunts, we give you plenty of choices so you can hunt with the weapon you're most comfortable with. Our guided and semi-guided hunts allow you to hunt with a rifle, muzzleloader, or bow. Because we are so committed to ensuring your satisfaction of the entire experience, we want to give you the choices you are most comfortable with. When you're ready for high success rates on guided elk hunts, guided deer hunts, and semi guided hunting, and more—Olympic Mountain Outfitters is your only choice.
Our Semi-Guided Elk Hunts allow you to spend time in some of the most stunning regions of the Pacific Northwest. We give you access to private property, timberland, and established food plots. We take the guesswork out of hunting so you can enjoy a successful hunt each and every time. From beginners to experienced hunters—there is no one better than Olympic Mountain Outfitters when you're ready to go out on a hunt.
Hunting CampsFor the Comforts of Home
Olympic Mountain Outfitters takes care of all of the details of your hunt. Our hunting camps are dry, comfortable, and equipped with everything you need to stay safe and cozy. With good food, good company, and great hunting, you can't go wrong when you choose an Olympic Mountain Outfitters hunt. Find out why so many hunters in the US. turn to us for semi guided hunts, guided deer hunts, guided elk hunts, and more. Spend time in some of the Northwest's most beautiful areas. Olympic Mountain Outfitters is here to help with all of our hunting needs. If you have questions, would like to schedule your hunt, feel free to contact us today. We have the experience to make your next hunt successful, fun, and safe. Contact us at 360-470-8708 to schedule your guided hunts or find out more about Olympic Mountain Outfitters. We look forward to hearing from you.


text:
Just to be clear: This is not a life and death decision. No one's existence hangs in the balance.
For Nashville Predators coach Barry Trotz, though, it just might be the decision of a lifetime.
The lineup choices he makes for Game 4 of the Western Conference semifinal series with the Phoenix Coyotes will be scrutinized from every angle. Many will agree. Many others will disagree.
The impact will be felt — one way or another — immediately and the effect will linger long after that.
"Honestly, I haven't put a lot of thought into it," he said late Thursday morning. "It's going to have to be something that I have to think about."
The thing about it is that he won't know whether or not he was right until hours after he actually makes up his mind.
The contest, which begins 6:30 p.m. Friday at Bridgestone Arena, is a critical one. Nashville trails 2-1 in the series but has momentum after a 2-0 triumph on Wednesday.
The dilemma comes from the fact that that victory was the result of one of the best overall team efforts in recent weeks even though the Predators did not necessarily put their best team on the ice. Forwards, Alexander Radulov, their leading scorer this postseason, and Andrei Kostitsyn, who is tied for the team lead in goals, were held out for disciplinary reasons.
So either Trotz sticks with the group that, thus far, has delivered the lone victory of this series in the name of continuity. Or he goes back to the those two, who each appeared in the first seven games of these playoffs, based on the idea that they accepted and served their punishment and — by virtue of their overall performance, production and potential — deserve to play ahead of some others.
Regardless of what he does, if Nashville wins he will be right; if it loses he will be wrong. At least that is what the popular opinion will be.
"When things are going well you don't like to tweak too much, but that's not for us to decide," defenseman and team captain Shea Weber said.
No it is not. That falls to Trotz.
The only coach in the history of the franchise, which played its first game in 1998, likely never has faced a decision quite like this one.
This is the best, most talented group of players ever assembled for this team. Part of its overall strength stems from the trade deadline acquisition of Kostitsyn and the unexpected return of Radulov after four years in Russia. Together, they provided an unprecedented injection of firepower at a critical juncture of the season.
Expectations for this postseason were higher than ever after last year, when Nashville made it out of the first round for the first time. They were heightened when the Predators cruised through this year's first round and eliminated their long-time measuring stick, the Detroit Red Wings.
With two of the final three games of the series scheduled for the Coyotes home ice, the Predators cannot afford to come out of this contest on the brink of elimination.
"Guys played well [Wednesday]," Radulov said. "I want to play, but it's not like I go and ask for it. Whatever happens [Friday], happens. We just have to make sure we're ready for the game.
"… It's up to the coaches. I can't control that."
Trotz said he would seek the counsel of key players, his assistants and others within the organization. He expressed satisfaction with how the two players in question handled the discipline even as he acknowledged how well the team played without them.
In the end, though, he is the one who will make the decision and — eventually — answer for it.
"We'll make a decision as a group," he said. "I know it is going to be very tough if I do anything [different from Wednesday]. I thought everyone was pretty committed. … The guys that were in got the job done and they played very hard.
"It would be very difficult for me to give you an exact lineup for [Friday]."
Before long, that's exactly what he must do.