This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - HighPSI
« on: April 05, 2005, 12:01:14 AM »
I retract my previous post. Compared to Peoples College of Laws the PR schools look like HYS! Seriously, all of the students at Peoples College of Law look like illegal immigrants. Not to mention they freely admit they're communist. Also has anyone seen that picture on their site ofthe school logo? It looks like a Soviet propaganda poster done in a southwestern motif. The best part is that if you look closely at it, it appears to be an old poster that has been crumpled, torn, taped back together and mounted in a 50 cent frame!
It is an old poster. I hardly know anything about hispanic culture but it was obvious to me in 2 seconds it was from back in the Cesar Chavez days:http://www.nevadalabor.com/cesar/cesargraphics/ufwflag395wx285h.jpg
« on: March 25, 2005, 04:10:42 AM »
And taking a class or two in the field in law school isn't what will get you the job - one way or the other.
Also, whether their building is nice or not is relevant only if you're willing to go $100k in debt in order to pay for their nice building.
For both of these reasons, I think you should strike Catholic off your list. Unless you really want the divorce, and the debt.
You're giving clueless advice on Telecom law. CUA has the top communications law program for telecom in the country. Period. Bar none. In addition to offering more classes in the field, the intro classes like "Becoming a Communications Lawyer", which is a 4 hour externship, is taught by Brian Tramont, Chief of Staff for former commisioner Powell. FCC Commissioner Abernathy is a CUA Law graduate. CUA Lawyers are in almost every single office of the FCC. Over 300 alumni (search for CLI in yahoo groups) create a network that guarantees your choice of summer jobs. Want to work in BigLaw? Do a school search @ the top firm, Skadden, and nearly every CUA Lawyer that works there (very few) is from the communications law program.
If it's not a priority for him, you're right, he should skip CUA. If it's what he wants to do, there is no other school in the country that guarantees success in this particular specality. Just like Harvard, Yale and other graduates exclude access beyond their crowd, so do CUA/CLI grads in telecom.
« on: March 14, 2005, 10:57:57 AM »
Yes i do associate public interst work (working for the poor, etc.) with the broad category "liberal", and yes i do consider the sentiment to help the poor and underprivilidged to be a "liberal" one.
Catholic Univ.'s school policies are far from "liberal", though the student body is mixed. That being said, they have a LOT of clinical programs for the poor and elderly, which is recognized by USN in their clinical rankings.http://law.cua.edu/academic/cle/clinics_columbus.cfm
« on: February 24, 2005, 10:20:00 PM »
This is from someone in the advertising sales department who is privy to the upcoming issue and behind the scenes metrics.
I call Bullship.
He might be full of it, but then again, he might not.
a.) Mason's Acceptance Rate: 9.2% - That does seem pretty low for #38 considering Hastings, who they're tied with is at 20.4%. Plus, look at their admission metrics (GPA/LSAT) and outside opinions (lawyers/judges), the gpa/lsat stuff is equal or slightly worse than other schools around them, but the lawyer/judge opinion of the school is a lot worse. Other than their wacky acceptance rate, do they really look like they belong at #38? All I'm saying is that there is a grain of logic in his lie.
b.) "Maryland: 96 took; 73 passed (a rate of 76 percent). The overall first time pass rate for Maryland was 74 percent. This figure represents an 11 percent improvement over last year’s pass rate for this law school."http://law.cua.edu/news/bar%20pass%20rates.cfm
Magazines do pretty much run on advertising. I get Maxim and FHM for FREE, so they're not getting paid by me. And in my experience sales guys are pretty sleazy, so someone in that department "leaking" info wouldn't shock me.
50/50 that he's BS'ing in my book.
« on: April 24, 2004, 09:19:04 PM »
TOTALLY agree with Reasoning number 2, not so with number one. Congressmen will pass laws that get them reelected, whether they were lawyers or not. Once you are in congress, your ass as a politician is on the line, not as a lawyer. Lawyers losing their jobs is not going to get much sympathy from constituents. But yea, I agree with your overall argument because of number 2.
I agree that my #1 reason is very subjective. However, one only has to examine the lack of progress with Tort reform in this country to realize that the legal industry has an incredibly effective way of getting their needs taken care of in Congress. Now, that can cut 2-ways, exisiting parterners might see their profit sharing increase if they can cut cost through outsourcing, so they might want it. However, given how risk averse lawyers are, I see them calculating the liability # in their head if some major client is screwed over by someone in a foreign country.
« on: April 24, 2004, 09:02:16 PM »
Two things in the legal industry's favor regarding outsourcing. #1 The majority of people in legislative positions are lawyers. They'll be the most reluctant to pass legislation to encourage or allow outsourcing of legal work. #2 Actually practicing law requires things that can't be outsourced: People and communication skills, a professional license that is State by State dependent, and a great dependancy on collaboration with others in many aspects of the work. Even something highly technical, like IP work, can't be outsourced. Having filed many patents, I can tell you that it involves a lot back and forth communication to explain the innovations, work out filing strategy, and revise the documents. That's not going to be accomplished any time soon by people living in time zones that are entirely incompatible with schedules in the U.S. Even in the software development process, the only outsourcing we used was for Q/A work where we could blast code over at the end of the day and get results back the next morning. I could see something similar for mundane legal research, but anything that requires JD level analysis is staying here IMO.
Another thing to think about is the perspective of the corporate client. Not many companes would be thrilled to have even legal research on matters pertaining to their confidential business being fired over the wire and handled by a foreign 3rd party whose local laws and actual ability to enforce may offer very little protection should someone on their end decide it's profittable to market the information.
« on: April 22, 2004, 11:52:04 PM »
I'd take Georgetown. It's the best program in one of, if not the top legal areas in the country (DC). You can easily take that degree and related DC experience anywhere in the country with you. There is nothing unqiue about Chicago that you probably can't get in any other major city. DC will likely expose you to a much broader range of law related jobs that aren't necessairly at a law firm. There are so many government agencies, lobby groups, think tanks, etc. etc.
« on: April 22, 2004, 11:45:57 PM »
They're going to want more detail than that. Look at legal biographies on nearly every law firm website. It generally goes into detail regarding law review, publications, etc. That being said, there are cases at certain schools that 'specialty" reviews are as good or better than the main one. It really depends how well received that particular program is. For example, if GW has a seperate journal for IP law, I'd assume given their extremely long history being one of the top IP law programs in the country that that particular journal would be taken highly.
« on: April 22, 2004, 11:25:57 PM »
Wasn't the blonde chick who was runner up on the 1st Joe Millionaire a Southwestern law student? I know for a fact she was a George Mason undergrad. Anyway, whenever I see Southwestern mentioned, I remember the "gulp, slurp" subtitles of her going down on Joe in the woods...
My vote would be go to Vermont if you think you could handle living there. I mean, worst case scenerio, you'd definitely be able to practice law in Vermont! Southwestern, you're at the bottom of the rung in Cali and your only hope may be Joe Millionaire...
If you could wait a year to reapply, you might want to consider some schools like American, or CUA in DC. Both are attainable with your #'s, and both have good public policy, public interest, and international programs. American's international program is outstanding, and CUA's gets grouped under USNew's "Clinical" ranking (#14) because they have several specialty programs.
By the way, I'm there with you on your frustration with WE and other non-number related qualities being counted. I know it's hard to process all the applications and make sense of what everyone uniquely brings to the table, but the emphasis placed on the index score is over the top. I think a reasonable solution would be to do what most Business Schools do and require 3 to 5 years of WE before applying for an MBA. The legal industry would never go for it, though. They need the 24 year old graduates willing to give up their lives for a few years before they burn out. Those of us who have gone through our 6-figure, 80 hour a week stage of life already aren't the ideal BigLaw drone.
One positive way to look at your WE, it should help you to land a 1L job easier because you have a track record of proven functionality, they don't have to "teach" you how to work and generate value. I've already had 2 interviews (1 law firm, 1 think tank) for 2005 1L summer with at least 4 more loaded for later in the summer and I haven't even stepped foot in school yet. A real resume, honed interview skills, and understanding what it's like to be on their side of the table will go a long way for you.