Law School Discussion

Show Posts

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 - queencruella

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 420
General Off-Topic Board / Re: for those that have started law school
« on: August 27, 2007, 05:28:16 AM »
I had to Google him just now. 

Well at least you know your relative pronouns.  Have a stab at correcting this thread's subject heading.

I see you've given up on blueb- he is a lost cause.

Good approach, but yeah, if I wasn't applying immediately, I'd certainly emphasize that. However, I am looking at applying this fall and leaving next summer. Thanks, though. You do raise a good point - If I'm truly valued, it won't matter. And, working in a field where the turnover is high, plus the fact that I've mentioned to her before that I'm thinking about LS, makes me think I should just go for it.

Any other thoughts? I'd like to hear how people broach the subject.

I was lucky, my boss actually offered to write one my second week on the job. He knew I was planning to apply, and for some reson hired me anway. Although, I have waited a few months though because I wanted to give him time to get to know me better and have a more effective PS. I will officially ask when he gets off his vacation Monday and sees that I haven't burnt his office down in the last month.

When it comes down to it I think employeers and teachers just want to help you as much as they can. Just ask, I am sure they will be excited for you.

I worked as a teacher for a while and in some places they were just offended to no end that anyone would want to leave to pursue some other career. Even if you are in a field where turnover is high and they need to keep you, it doesn't mean that they won't make the rest of your days a living hell because they know you're leaving.

If possible, see if you can find other recommenders before going to the current one. Because law schools know that telling the current employer you will be leaving a year down the road can be a risky venture, they shouldn't hold it against you.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Birth Control
« on: August 22, 2007, 02:52:51 PM »
it depends on the type of pill. ru-486 or are we talking about large doses of a woman's normal birth control.  one is emphatically what is known as an abortifacient, the other is known as emergency contraception.

Plan B or "morning after" is just the regular birth control hormones in higher doses. RU-486 is something entirely different (I think it's a steroid) intended to terminate already-existing pregnancies. People take Plan B so they don't have to get an abortion later on.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Birth Control
« on: August 22, 2007, 02:42:05 PM »
it is technically speaking the ending of a life.  there is no argument on this front within the scientific community.  it is, to put it precisely the ending of a human life.  whether you call it a human being is the real issue.

From what I understand, the morning after pill acts to prevent pregnancy and has no effect on any pregnancy that's already occurred. It's just a higher dose of the hormones already found in common birth control pills. Chances are when a women is going to get the morning after pill, she's not even pregnant yet. She's getting the pill to prevent herself from actually getting pregnant.

objective data do not support this.  more money in business than in law.

Again, people who get MBAs ALREADY have work experience. They may very well have been making good salaries before but needed the MBA to progress further in their careers. When you're talking a person-to-person comparison, a person straight out of undergrad is probably not going to have much success with an MBA because s/he'll be competing against people who have years of experience. For < 3 years, the average is around $78K from the information you provided. There's no real data for people with no experience because usually the people entering MBA programs with no experience probably did something impressive in undergrad to make up for it.


actually that is completely false.  for years now the MBA has one of the highest investment:payoff ratios of any grad school.  if you google MBA average salary you'll find hundreds of articles confirming this.  in fact the USNWR had a big article in conjunction with their grad school rankings a couple of years ago.  dollar for dollar and month for month the MBA trumps just about any graduate degree.  with law it's not even close.

The big difference is that a lot of people entering MBA programs who are successful were already successful prior to entering the program. Most reputable programs require at least 2 year of full-time work experience and from what I've seen the median age tends to be closer to the 27-28 range. Most people going into law school come in with liberal arts majors that aren't likely to make someone a whole lot of money immediately. In terms of degrees for people with no experience, the law degree is probably a better investment.

What confidence.  Allow me to expand on this and present you with more scenarios than you've cared to consider.  Perhaps a student attends a good liberal arts college and graduates with 50-60k in debt.  That student, unless a math or science major, can likely expect to make around 50k a year upon graduation.  Now, that student could go straight to the workforce and live check to check to try and pay down such debt, or they can enter law school immediately afterwards and defer payment, thereby also extending the subsidization of a substantial portion of said loans.  True, the student will incur more debt by going to law school, but if that student is currently scoring in the mid-170s and it is only his 4th practice test, it is highly unlikely that he will be attending a T2 school or be excluded from getting a well paying job in corporate law.   Wink

So let's see...were this an LSAT question, I'd pick

D)  fails to consider the possiblity that the future salary will make it easier to pay back the total debt.

Evidently a lot of people pick that one too.  Equally acceptable would have been

E)  fails to consider that the student may receive a good scholarship from a top school, thereby limiting the amount of law school debt

this is so full of assumptions it's not even worth the time to dissect it.  1. most lawyers do not make 50k + a year coming out of school.  in fact if you're looking for a good return on your investment, get an MBA. 2. most students don't get a lot of money from a school and end up graduating with crushing amounts of debt. this is especially true of students applying to their "reach" schools where the chance of getting a scholarship is almost zero.   i could literally roll on for a page or two but we'll leave the attacks to two fatal flaws.

Have you checked out the employment stats for MBA programs? At #2 Stanford, slightly over 84% were employed at graduation. That's for a #2 program- the risks seem a lot greater for people going to lower-ranked programs. A lot of the more successful students had successful careers before and are just going to get MBAs so they can progress to the next level.

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: What annoys me more than AA
« on: August 19, 2007, 09:52:47 AM »
Explain your comment further. What exactly do you mean by meritocracy? Why is law more of a meritocracy than other professions, and do you think this is a good thing (and if so, why)?

I have to disagree that it's a meritocracy. As Matthies always points out, most of the job openings in law are unpublished and the best way to get to them is through connections. Connections don't always mean that your parent is someone important. It can mean that you've already proved yourself to someone else in the field who is willing to recommend you for a position. Like in any other profession, taking someone who is known to have positive traits is better than going for someone who is more impressive on paper but could be a total bust in the workplace.

how is stating that she wants to go to Columbia putting words in her mouth?  anyway, her adviser knows her far better than any of us.  there is probably a reason why, at a touchy feely school like UW Madison, he is telling her to take some time off.  if you are 20, to anyone not still in high school, you are immature.  there are exceptions, but overall you're pretty green.
edit: i think law schools are increasingly going the NU route and place more importance on being a couple of years out of school before getting in.

Public school advisers usually leave a bit to be desired. From what I've heard about UW's advising program specifically, I don't think it's any different.

However, I do agree that for a splitter, some time between UG and LS is key, otherwise you just seem like a lazy underachiever who may do the exact same thing in law school.

Graduating a semester early is hardly uncommon. Speaking two languages is also nice, but again it's not particularly unique.

Lindbergh is right. With a 3.0, in order to get into any of 1-7 you would need a small miracle or amazing work experience, and at the age of 20 you're already s.o.l. with the latter. If you can break 170 you stand a chance with getting into one of 7-14 (the higher the better, of course), with NW and Georgetown being your best bets. Even with a stellar score on the LSAT, however, getting into any of those schools is no sure thing.

NW is probably the WORST bet since it won't take people without a year of work experience. Best-case scenario is that you'll be asked to wait a year and then start.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 420