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.
Topics - ////
« on: May 04, 2007, 11:41:26 AM »
Not the biggest fan, but I watch it 'cause my SO loves it. She was all excited for a 2 hour special that was just "too much to fit into one hour" and turned out to be a shorter than average episode piggybacked onto a shameless attempt to establish a spinoff show.
« on: May 01, 2007, 11:48:11 AM »
Got this in a vault newsletter today - thought I'd share:
By Blueprint Test Preparation
Blueprint Test Preparation, unites the finest instructors with the most extensive, detailed and up-to-date LSAT course available.
Applicants seeking admission to law school for the fall of 2007 are each unique, but as a group they share a universal, and somewhat unusual, characteristic. They are the first applicant pool in five years to see the number of overall applicants decrease, based on the February data. After 2001 (perhaps due to the dot-com bust), the number of applicants to U.S. law schools increased steadily, leveling out around 2005. 2006 is the first year to see a dramatic decrease in the overall numbers.
The decrease in applicants has affected nearly every school. The New York Times recently reported that, as a whole, law school applications are down 9.5 percent from last year. And while some have speculated that the decrease is most pronounced for schools in the second and third tier, the Times reported that many top schools had been heavily impacted by the decline. Harvard, which typically has one of the largest applicant pools of any law school, saw numbers drop from 7,386 last year to 7,127 this year. Similarly, Stanford saw applicants slip from 5,040 to 4,863, and Columbia showed one of the largest decreases with numbers falling from 8,355 to 8,020.
But does a decrease in overall applicants mean that the admissions process is changing? One sign that the applicant pool is experiencing ripples includes Yale Law School's recently relaxed rules regarding LSAT test dates. Yale typically does not consider test scores from administrations after December for fall admissions, but this year the consistently top-ranked school altered its policy to allow February test takers to apply for the fall of 2007. Perhaps because of the change, Yale is the only school whose number of overall applicants has only been slighted affected, down just five students from 2005.
The numbers are certainly falling, but it is difficult to determine why or what this means for applicants. With national unemployment at just 4.7 percent, (a four-year low), some speculate that the strong economy is luring more young people to the workforce before pursuing advanced degrees.
Another factor may be the increased cost of attending law school. Even at UCLA, a public school subsidized by tax dollars, tuition has doubled over the last several years and now hovers around $24,000. Even so, the cost of attending UCLA is still significantly less than the cost of attending a private school. (Stanford Law School's tuition for the 2007/2008 school year was just under $40,000). With tuition increasing, prospective students may be taking more time to consider the financial implications of assuming hefty student loans.
It is also possible that the increased competitiveness of the admissions game has discouraged some students from applying. With a tightening LSAT curve and increasing GPA demands, the process itself may have become so difficult that people who would have applied cavalierly before are now rethinking the process until they can be sure that applying to law school is the right decision.
Still another theory is that, like the real estate market, the law school applicant pool is experiencing a normal correction, balancing itself out after the spike in applicants over the last five years.
Whatever the reason, there is no proof that the decrease in applicants is making it any less difficult to obtain admission at competitive schools. In fact, the tightening LSAT curve and the stability of Yale's applicant pool suggests that the most competitive candidates, those who are targeting elite schools and competitive firm jobs, are still applying in large numbers.
If the applicant pool is shrinking, but overall competition is not slackening, the LSAT is as important than ever. And in light of the applicant boom and the fierce competition in law school admissions over the last decade, even a 10 percent decrease in applicants is unlikely to make the application process significantly easier. Obtaining admission to law school is still a tough and competitive process. Whatever the applicant pool numbers, an outstanding LSAT score continues to be essential to ensure your place in a law school class.
« on: April 09, 2007, 01:34:23 PM »
I was thinking about schools and firm recruiting during my lunch break and thought I'd share - ask for opinions.
You could as easily say diversity as well as AA for this, but since this is the AA board I'll say AA.
My understanding is that BIGLAW firms tend to reach into each law school to a certain rough % of the class, whether it be 90% at HYS, 50% at CCN, 20% at t50 (made up numbers, but you get the point).
I also understand that URMs may get a boost in hiring beyond this rough percentage, be it AA or firms seeking diversity, or some other aspect of their app that correlates well with hiring beyond grades.
If we assume that 1/2 of URM students (another made up figure) are inside and 1/2 outside the typical firm reach, can we not also assume that some of those outside the reach provide an extra boost in firm hiring stats?
If so, doesn't that raise the profile of the whole law school as these stats are reported? More subtly, wouldn't it also strengthen the overall alumni network?
Does this mean that more diverse schools have a greater firm reach in general?
« on: March 21, 2007, 03:21:59 PM »
« on: March 04, 2007, 02:57:42 PM »
At the ASW at NYU this friday I heard numerous mentions of 2 new faculty members in Intellectual Property coming to NYU. Anyone have anything substantial on this?
« on: February 28, 2007, 04:37:47 PM »
Law School Rivalries fascinate me.
What would you consider a major rivalry?
I'll put together a list. I'll bold when there is agreement. Red if it's contentious.
- CLS v. NYU
- BC v. BU
- Seton Hall v. Rutgers
- Cardozo v. Brooklyn
- Boalt v. Stanford
- GW v. American
- UCLA v. USC
- Hastings v. Davis
- Chicago v. Northwestern
- SMU v Baylor
- W&L v. W&M
- American v. Catholic v. Mason
- UMich v UVA v Boalt for top public
- whittier v. golden gate. v. cooley = tttt battle royal
« on: February 23, 2007, 11:05:07 AM »
Pretty specific - but maybe someone good with numbers will lend a hand.
How much debt will I accrue if the following is true:
LS: NYU / CLS
Rent: Slightly subsidized by spouse - I'll pay $700 / month, plus 1/2 utilities, groceries etc.
1L - Max Stafford Loans only - rest paid out of savings (~$18.5k)
1L summer - assume the worst for employment (I have no idea what 1L summers are like)
2L - All loans (Stafford + GradPlus, no private)
2L Summer- Biglaw market rate (~$28-30k pre tax)
3L - All Loans
Q's - How much total debt at Graduation? What does that look like for monthly repayment?
« on: January 25, 2007, 03:55:24 PM »
I know there are a lot of threads debating the difference between the two (if anyone wants to post some - I will add to the top) and I don't know how much can really be gleaned from them as it seems to be such a personal decision.
With that in mind, would any current students or decided pre-laws be willing to share the reason they chose one over the other? I'd really be particularly interested in anything beyond the typical location / campus versus city responses.
Also, how much $$ would it take to sway you to choose the other?
Thanks in Advance!
« on: January 24, 2007, 04:30:58 PM »
In at CLS!
(not a flame)
« on: January 22, 2007, 10:45:36 AM »
Anticipation is a killer. It's turning me into a filthy monkey pirate w lazers and everything...