Law School Discussion

Deciding Where to Go => Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses => Topic started by: captainmaharet on October 04, 2008, 11:18:27 AM

Title: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: captainmaharet on October 04, 2008, 11:18:27 AM
Due to my financial situation, I have a choice between Rutgers Camden or Rutgers Newark. Which is the better school? Which is better for contracts, First Amendment law, UCMJ, or conlaw?
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Muhammad Ali on October 05, 2008, 01:36:26 PM
Camden is more for the Philly market, Newark is more for the NY market.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Ninja1 on October 11, 2008, 01:17:52 AM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Penn263 on October 12, 2008, 11:54:28 AM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Ninja1 on October 13, 2008, 02:23:45 AM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Penn263 on October 16, 2008, 05:07:19 PM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.

Actually I respected them a lot for trying to reform the law school admissions process. They actually invited me to apply--which equals guaranteed acceptance I assume--because I got a really high GRE score, and they wanted to see if people with really GRE scores could do equally as well as students with high LSAT scores. I never took up their offer just because it was late in the season I was already accepted elsewhere. But give them some credit for trying to change the admissions process. How much bull is it when the LSAT counts more than your GPA, i.e. a 5 hour test is more indicative of your ability than 4 years of college?? Furthermore, the LSAT doesn't really mean anything in terms of predicting how well you will do during 1L--even though LSAC swears it does. Tons of 2Ls and 3Ls have reaffirmed this notion.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: krystal82 on November 19, 2008, 03:57:53 PM
I agree that the LSAT is not predictive especially within a close range of scores. I'm above the 75th percentile at my school, but there is no way I think I'm smarter than 75% of my class. Strangely i feel as though the people who made it off the waitlist are the smartest in my class. we'll see though after grades come out. 
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: K? on December 07, 2008, 09:54:00 PM
I agree that the LSAT is not predictive especially within a close range of scores. I'm above the 75th percentile at my school, but there is no way I think I'm smarter than 75% of my class. Strangely i feel as though the people who made it off the waitlist are the smartest in my class. we'll see though after grades come out. 

QFT.

Also, pick whichever Rutgers campus is closest to Greg Schiano.  HTH.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Ninja1 on December 08, 2008, 06:58:48 AM
I agree that the LSAT is not predictive especially within a close range of scores. I'm above the 75th percentile at my school, but there is no way I think I'm smarter than 75% of my class. Strangely i feel as though the people who made it off the waitlist are the smartest in my class. we'll see though after grades come out. 

And this grave needed dug because...
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: studymaster on December 16, 2008, 05:57:11 PM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.

Actually I respected them a lot for trying to reform the law school admissions process. They actually invited me to apply--which equals guaranteed acceptance I assume--because I got a really high GRE score, and they wanted to see if people with really GRE scores could do equally as well as students with high LSAT scores. I never took up their offer just because it was late in the season I was already accepted elsewhere. But give them some credit for trying to change the admissions process. How much bull is it when the LSAT counts more than your GPA, i.e. a 5 hour test is more indicative of your ability than 4 years of college?? Furthermore, the LSAT doesn't really mean anything in terms of predicting how well you will do during 1L--even though LSAC swears it does. Tons of 2Ls and 3Ls have reaffirmed this notion.

Huh I guess I will trust the anecdotal evidence from 2l and 3ls instead of statistical correlation between LSAT score and firs tyear grades.....


And frankly it isnt bull at all that a better predictor counts more heavily.... in fact some might say that even makes sense...
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Ninja1 on December 19, 2008, 11:41:54 AM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.

Actually I respected them a lot for trying to reform the law school admissions process. They actually invited me to apply--which equals guaranteed acceptance I assume--because I got a really high GRE score, and they wanted to see if people with really GRE scores could do equally as well as students with high LSAT scores. I never took up their offer just because it was late in the season I was already accepted elsewhere. But give them some credit for trying to change the admissions process. How much bull is it when the LSAT counts more than your GPA, i.e. a 5 hour test is more indicative of your ability than 4 years of college?? Furthermore, the LSAT doesn't really mean anything in terms of predicting how well you will do during 1L--even though LSAC swears it does. Tons of 2Ls and 3Ls have reaffirmed this notion.

Huh I guess I will trust the anecdotal evidence from 2l and 3ls instead of statistical correlation between LSAT score and firs tyear grades.....


And frankly it isnt bull at all that a better predictor counts more heavily.... in fact some might say that even makes sense...

It does make sense that schools will look more at what should be the better indicator. I think what gets most people is how much more they look at the better indicator.

If I remember right, the statistical correlation to first year grades that LSAC cites is .4 for the LSAT and .25 for UGPA, so neither is very strong and they're not that far apart.

Still, it never ceases to amaze me that you can functionally cancel out 4-5 years of being a fuckup in college with a 170+ LSAT.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: K? on December 19, 2008, 10:12:24 PM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.

Actually I respected them a lot for trying to reform the law school admissions process. They actually invited me to apply--which equals guaranteed acceptance I assume--because I got a really high GRE score, and they wanted to see if people with really GRE scores could do equally as well as students with high LSAT scores. I never took up their offer just because it was late in the season I was already accepted elsewhere. But give them some credit for trying to change the admissions process. How much bull is it when the LSAT counts more than your GPA, i.e. a 5 hour test is more indicative of your ability than 4 years of college?? Furthermore, the LSAT doesn't really mean anything in terms of predicting how well you will do during 1L--even though LSAC swears it does. Tons of 2Ls and 3Ls have reaffirmed this notion.

Huh I guess I will trust the anecdotal evidence from 2l and 3ls instead of statistical correlation between LSAT score and firs tyear grades.....


And frankly it isnt bull at all that a better predictor counts more heavily.... in fact some might say that even makes sense...

It does make sense that schools will look more at what should be the better indicator. I think what gets most people is how much more they look at the better indicator.

If I remember right, the statistical correlation to first year grades that LSAC cites is .4 for the LSAT and .25 for UGPA, so neither is very strong and they're not that far apart.

Still, it never ceases to amaze me that you can functionally cancel out 4-5 years of being a fuckup in college with a 170+ LSAT.

So much hate...
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: 1L2011 on December 20, 2008, 10:38:52 AM
I'm at Rutgers Newark and I'm having a great experience there. IMO it comes down to where you wanna work and what part of Jersey do you wanna spend 3 years around. I know Newark is pretty bad but the area around the campus is much nicer and the PATH makes it very easy to get around NNJ and into NYC. As soon as I pulled up to visit Camden I know that it wasnt for me though,
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: SavoyTruffleShuffle on December 20, 2008, 12:09:41 PM
It's amazing how merely crossing the Ben Franklin Bridge takes you from cool (Philly) to yuck (Camden).
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: K? on December 20, 2008, 12:14:43 PM
It's amazing how merely crossing the Ben Franklin Bridge takes you from cool (Philly) to yuck (Camden).

I think the more amazing thing is that there are people who consider Philly "cool"
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: studymaster on December 20, 2008, 02:14:33 PM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.

Actually I respected them a lot for trying to reform the law school admissions process. They actually invited me to apply--which equals guaranteed acceptance I assume--because I got a really high GRE score, and they wanted to see if people with really GRE scores could do equally as well as students with high LSAT scores. I never took up their offer just because it was late in the season I was already accepted elsewhere. But give them some credit for trying to change the admissions process. How much bull is it when the LSAT counts more than your GPA, i.e. a 5 hour test is more indicative of your ability than 4 years of college?? Furthermore, the LSAT doesn't really mean anything in terms of predicting how well you will do during 1L--even though LSAC swears it does. Tons of 2Ls and 3Ls have reaffirmed this notion.

Huh I guess I will trust the anecdotal evidence from 2l and 3ls instead of statistical correlation between LSAT score and firs tyear grades.....


And frankly it isnt bull at all that a better predictor counts more heavily.... in fact some might say that even makes sense...

It does make sense that schools will look more at what should be the better indicator. I think what gets most people is how much more they look at the better indicator.

If I remember right, the statistical correlation to first year grades that LSAC cites is .4 for the LSAT and .25 for UGPA, so neither is very strong and they're not that far apart.

Still, it never ceases to amaze me that you can functionally cancel out 4-5 years of being a fuckup in college with a 170+ LSAT.

I actually agree they weigh the LSAT slightly too heavily, I just htink it sho9uld be more heavily than GPA. But also, the LSAT is indicative of natural ability that can't be faked. I don't believe that just anyone could get a 170, it implies a certain level of cognitive functioning.
I do share an awareness of the importance of one "small" test, I gave it about a year worth of prep bc i thought that was the proper weight, I think spending too little effort on the LSAT is the most common mistake for applicants...
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Ninja1 on December 21, 2008, 12:20:30 AM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.

Actually I respected them a lot for trying to reform the law school admissions process. They actually invited me to apply--which equals guaranteed acceptance I assume--because I got a really high GRE score, and they wanted to see if people with really GRE scores could do equally as well as students with high LSAT scores. I never took up their offer just because it was late in the season I was already accepted elsewhere. But give them some credit for trying to change the admissions process. How much bull is it when the LSAT counts more than your GPA, i.e. a 5 hour test is more indicative of your ability than 4 years of college?? Furthermore, the LSAT doesn't really mean anything in terms of predicting how well you will do during 1L--even though LSAC swears it does. Tons of 2Ls and 3Ls have reaffirmed this notion.

Huh I guess I will trust the anecdotal evidence from 2l and 3ls instead of statistical correlation between LSAT score and firs tyear grades.....


And frankly it isnt bull at all that a better predictor counts more heavily.... in fact some might say that even makes sense...

It does make sense that schools will look more at what should be the better indicator. I think what gets most people is how much more they look at the better indicator.

If I remember right, the statistical correlation to first year grades that LSAC cites is .4 for the LSAT and .25 for UGPA, so neither is very strong and they're not that far apart.

Still, it never ceases to amaze me that you can functionally cancel out 4-5 years of being a fuckup in college with a 170+ LSAT.

So much hate...

Just the truth.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: K? on December 21, 2008, 09:43:35 AM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.

Actually I respected them a lot for trying to reform the law school admissions process. They actually invited me to apply--which equals guaranteed acceptance I assume--because I got a really high GRE score, and they wanted to see if people with really GRE scores could do equally as well as students with high LSAT scores. I never took up their offer just because it was late in the season I was already accepted elsewhere. But give them some credit for trying to change the admissions process. How much bull is it when the LSAT counts more than your GPA, i.e. a 5 hour test is more indicative of your ability than 4 years of college?? Furthermore, the LSAT doesn't really mean anything in terms of predicting how well you will do during 1L--even though LSAC swears it does. Tons of 2Ls and 3Ls have reaffirmed this notion.

Huh I guess I will trust the anecdotal evidence from 2l and 3ls instead of statistical correlation between LSAT score and firs tyear grades.....


And frankly it isnt bull at all that a better predictor counts more heavily.... in fact some might say that even makes sense...

It does make sense that schools will look more at what should be the better indicator. I think what gets most people is how much more they look at the better indicator.

If I remember right, the statistical correlation to first year grades that LSAC cites is .4 for the LSAT and .25 for UGPA, so neither is very strong and they're not that far apart.

Still, it never ceases to amaze me that you can functionally cancel out 4-5 years of being a fuckup in college with a 170+ LSAT.

So much hate...

Just the truth.

Not sure I agree.  I smell bitterness.  Then again, at least you're not one of those winners still talking about where they did and didn't get into, so you can't be all that bitter.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Ninja1 on December 21, 2008, 10:00:10 PM
Camden, but really, neither. Both are in NJ.

Speaking of Rutgers Camden... they actually allow some people to get in by submitting GRE scores... crazy isn't it?

Just what you'd expect from a shithole in NJ, that's all.

Actually I respected them a lot for trying to reform the law school admissions process. They actually invited me to apply--which equals guaranteed acceptance I assume--because I got a really high GRE score, and they wanted to see if people with really GRE scores could do equally as well as students with high LSAT scores. I never took up their offer just because it was late in the season I was already accepted elsewhere. But give them some credit for trying to change the admissions process. How much bull is it when the LSAT counts more than your GPA, i.e. a 5 hour test is more indicative of your ability than 4 years of college?? Furthermore, the LSAT doesn't really mean anything in terms of predicting how well you will do during 1L--even though LSAC swears it does. Tons of 2Ls and 3Ls have reaffirmed this notion.

Huh I guess I will trust the anecdotal evidence from 2l and 3ls instead of statistical correlation between LSAT score and firs tyear grades.....


And frankly it isnt bull at all that a better predictor counts more heavily.... in fact some might say that even makes sense...

It does make sense that schools will look more at what should be the better indicator. I think what gets most people is how much more they look at the better indicator.

If I remember right, the statistical correlation to first year grades that LSAC cites is .4 for the LSAT and .25 for UGPA, so neither is very strong and they're not that far apart.

Still, it never ceases to amaze me that you can functionally cancel out 4-5 years of being a fuckup in college with a 170+ LSAT.

So much hate...

Just the truth.

Not sure I agree.  I smell bitterness.  Then again, at least you're not one of those winners still talking about where they did and didn't get into, so you can't be all that bitter.

Not bitter at all. I'm at the school I wanted to get into the most.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: hema1999 on July 17, 2009, 12:06:34 AM
 "This was exactly what I needed," Arino, 32, said during a coffee break on the first day of class two weeks ago.

The Mini-MBA program at the university's Center for Management Development has mushroomed since former Goldman Sachs executive Abe Weiss launched it in 2003. Last month's courses were the first to be administered on consecutive days, instead of weekly for 12 weeks, a decision that turned them into an international attraction.

At Arino's lunch table the first day sat Bakr Fatallah, a rookie supervisor at Saudi Telecom Co. who flew 13 hours from Riyadh to attend. Other students included Puerto Rican-based managers from a medical supply company and, the week before, a biotechnology executive from Singapore.

"I need to have management skills -- how to make strategic decisions, how to make a one-year strategic plan, how to be a leader," Fatallah said. "My company said, ?ose any program you need.' "

More than 2,500 professionals have completed a Mini-MBA course, whether on campus or at an in-house administration at a company or nonprofit organization. The original "Business Essentials" course has averaged 23 students, Weiss said, and inspired successful spinoffs.

The "Finance Essentials" course started in 2006, with "BioPharma Innovation" following in 2007. "Strategic Healthcare Management" was delivered for the first time in 2008 on-site at St. Peter's Hospital in New Brunswick -- where it is a requirement for second-year residents. The next course, "BioPharma Entrepreneurship," will begin this winter.

Students receive a certificate at the conclusion of the course, which costs about $3,000. Those who pass an exam at the end are eligible for three credits toward a Rutgers MBA, which requires 60 total credits.

In each course, enrollment generally has remained steady or picked up, despite the recession, Weiss said. That's a surprising trend, he said, given that most participants are sponsored by their employers. Only a handful of the 28 people in Arino and Fatallah's class reported other funding sources on surveys handed out at the first session.
Title: Re: Which Rutgers is better?
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on July 17, 2009, 12:16:23 PM
"This was exactly what I needed," Arino, 32, said during a coffee break on the first day of class two weeks ago.

The Mini-MBA program at the university's Center for Management Development has mushroomed since former Goldman Sachs executive Abe Weiss launched it in 2003. Last month's courses were the first to be administered on consecutive days, instead of weekly for 12 weeks, a decision that turned them into an international attraction.

At Arino's lunch table the first day sat Bakr Fatallah, a rookie supervisor at Saudi Telecom Co. who flew 13 hours from Riyadh to attend. Other students included Puerto Rican-based managers from a medical supply company and, the week before, a biotechnology executive from Singapore.

"I need to have management skills -- how to make strategic decisions, how to make a one-year strategic plan, how to be a leader," Fatallah said. "My company said, ?ose any program you need.' "

More than 2,500 professionals have completed a Mini-MBA course, whether on campus or at an in-house administration at a company or nonprofit organization. The original "Business Essentials" course has averaged 23 students, Weiss said, and inspired successful spinoffs.

The "Finance Essentials" course started in 2006, with "BioPharma Innovation" following in 2007. "Strategic Healthcare Management" was delivered for the first time in 2008 on-site at St. Peter's Hospital in New Brunswick -- where it is a requirement for second-year residents. The next course, "BioPharma Entrepreneurship," will begin this winter.

Students receive a certificate at the conclusion of the course, which costs about $3,000. Those who pass an exam at the end are eligible for three credits toward a Rutgers MBA, which requires 60 total credits.

In each course, enrollment generally has remained steady or picked up, despite the recession, Weiss said. That's a surprising trend, he said, given that most participants are sponsored by their employers. Only a handful of the 28 people in Arino and Fatallah's class reported other funding sources on surveys handed out at the first session.



banned for spam