Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - Mr. Burnz

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 36
1
Hey, as far as I can tell, no one was asking stupid questions in this thread. We're just trying to bury Tetris and Amped before the scores DO go up.

I was directing that to all threads and just happened to be on this one...don't take it personally (to this thread).

2
Look idiots...enough of this.  I've taken the LSAT twice and received two scores, so I feel I am qualified to tell you how it works.  This is what I observed both times I received my scores:

(1) At the end of the workday (~5 PM EST, give or take an hour), LSAC starts its release program and then takes off for the weekend so they don't have to field any of your stupid questions about whether your bad score was a mistake.
 
(2) Not all scores will be posted at the same exact time, but they're usually within 2-3 hours of each other as the program progresses through the release. 

(3) The emailed score you get from LSAC will arrive almost simultaneously with the posting on the website, so don't worry about refreshing the slow score page -- just leave your email program open.

Sorry for the attitude but I'm getting sick of all this stupid info.  Hope this helps, xoxo.

3
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: GW v. Vandy with $
« on: April 27, 2007, 03:32:25 PM »
also, at GW the smaller writing class is primarily taught by a TA.

That's just flat out wrong. My good friend at GW says EVERY writing section has about 12 kids and meets twice a week: once with an Adjunct Professor who is a practicing local attorney, and once with a 3L "Dean's Fellow" who teaches how to use Lexis/Westlaw, how to bluebook, and other law school tips for 1Ls (outlining, exam taking, etc.). He says they use a "Fail < Low Pass < Pass < High Pass" scale, but that no one ever gets low passes or fails....so that's kinda cool.

ok, so, its not taught by a real professor ...

Actually, its way better than a "real" professor.  My friend's supposedly "unreal" professor at GW is in charge of conducting the writing seminars for incoming associates at a big firm in DC.  Apparently, all law firms have these programs to teach their incoming associates with "school" writing skills how to write in the "real" world for "real" clients/colleagues.  So yeah, if you don't want to consider someone who trains people how to write at a law firm a "real" professor, then I guess you're right.  Basically, you're saying that someone who teaches at a law firm rather than full-time at a school isn't a professor.  Don't you think that's an absurd distinction?  It becomes even more funny when you consider the fact that these adjuncts ARE teaching at school--just not full-time.

This indicates to me that students who learn their writing skills from "real" professors might actually be at a disadvantage for practical legal writing at a firm (though "scholarly" writing might be a different story).  Anyhow, the point is my friend says his writing class taught by an "unreal" professor was awesome when he worked at a firm last summer and had already been exposed to writing in the real world--not just for grades at school.

4
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: GW v. Vandy with $
« on: April 27, 2007, 01:13:01 AM »
also, at GW the smaller writing class is primarily taught by a TA.

That's just flat out wrong.  My good friend at GW says EVERY writing section has about 12 kids and meets twice a week: once with an Adjunct Professor who is a practicing local attorney, and once with a 3L "Dean's Fellow" who teaches how to use Lexis/Westlaw, how to bluebook, and other law school tips for 1Ls (outlining, exam taking, etc.).  He says they use a "Fail < Low Pass < Pass < High Pass" scale, but that no one ever gets low passes or fails....so that's kinda cool.

5
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: GW v. Vandy with $
« on: April 25, 2007, 03:19:51 PM »
Use common sense. Avoid dark alleys and abandoned parking lots at 3 in the morning.

Let me add another piece of advice for safety in Nashville...if you see Pacman Jones running around, you're probably in the wrong place! Get the hell out of there! :)

6
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: GW v. Vandy with $
« on: April 25, 2007, 02:59:34 AM »
Well hey, that was a more reasonable response.  A few points:

1) I agree COL can be manipulated, but the point is that the COL is not drastically different to justify one way or the other.

2) I think you're putting too much emphasis on reputation scores, and not enough on their relativity (i.e. 3 to 4 is actually much less a difference than 4-5, which is elite.)  In fact, you DID recognize this principle when you pointed out that 14-16 isn't "minimal" just because they're 2 spots away.  Regardless, the point is--these schools were just 18 and 19 last year.  The difference is minimal in that they both place very well on the east coast.  Could the schools have really changed that much in one year that now you'll never be able to get a job from one of them?

3) I was careful to state "Regarding job prospects: it looks like you at least have moreopportunities to land a big firm at GW."  The point is that there ARE more firms present at the OCI--thus, technically, more firms to bid on (even if ultimately you don't get the spot, you will definitely get your shot!).

4) The "national" claim is bogus--it's an unfair comparison to say one is more "national" than the other.  Obviously, more kids from Vandy leave Tennessee when all the jobs are in DC and NY (which BOTH schools place well in).  You can't say that a school isn't "national" because it is already in one of the job-rich cities that the other school sends its kids to.

5) Again, go to wherever you like better--but I certainly wouldn't base it on whether one is ranked higher than the other.  For Yale vs. Vandy, sure, take Yale.  But for GW vs. Vandy, as I said before, the ultimate difference for your job prospects is minimal if at all...

7
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: GW v. Vandy with $
« on: April 24, 2007, 07:53:29 PM »
Well, if there's one reason NOT to go to Vandy--it's OhHellYeah.  The people are the most important part of law school--and that'd be convincing enough for me.

Anyhow, the difference between a #16 and #22 school is minimal.  And if you remember, it was just 18 and 19 last year wasnt it? It's not like lawyers have these rankings out thinking OH MY GOD, NOW I'll NEVER HIRE ANYONE FROM X!  We're talking maybe a few more people out of hundreds make it to big firms because they chose Vandy over GW, or vice versa.  You'll have a legitimate shot at both schools.  But of course, if you finish in the bottom 10-20% of either, then no, your job prospects aren't that great.  The key is to go whereever you fit in and feel more comfortable--ultimately you're gonna spend 3 years there, possibly longer.

Regarding job prospects: it looks like you at least have more opportunities to land a big firm at GW:
http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/02/national_and_re.html

Good luck in whatever you choose!

UPDATE: Cost of Attendance Figures:
GW: $58,698
Vandy: $60,118

8
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: US News Not Leaked, Released
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:20:36 PM »
If you still can't get the new rankings...

1) Close down all your Internet Explorer windows
2) Go to your cookies folder (usually at C:\Documents and Settings\YOURUSERNAME\Cookies)--it may be HIDDEN so you might need to type it into the address bar,
3) Delete the cookies @usnews.com and @www.usnews.com (just these 2). 
4) Go back to the US News website and login BEFORE you access the rankings.
5) Enjoy.

PS: I logged out and when I came back, the old rankings returned.  I went and deleted my cookies again and they came back.  Figures...

9
It means he goes to, applied to, or was accepted at Tulane.

10
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Isreal and Lebannon
« on: August 03, 2006, 05:55:40 AM »
For all you nerds who think they know exactly whats going on in Lebanon as you hide behind their computer screens munching on potato chips--here is a report (source: Yahoo News) by Human Rights Watch, which collected information ON THE GROUND IN LEBANON regarding Israel "defending itself" as the cliche goes... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/wl_nm/mideast_lebanon_rights_dc_1;_ylt=At0qwSTqT3NO5zh.Ycwn5bUUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Rights group slams Israel for bombing civilians
 
Israel's military appears to have deliberately bombed civilians in Lebanon and some of its strikes constitute war crimes, U.S.-based rights group Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Thursday.

HRW said Israel's contention that Hizbollah fighters were hiding among Lebanese civilians did not justify its "systematic failure" to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

"In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians," HRW said in a statement accompanying a report released on Thursday.

"The failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hizbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes."

At least 646 Lebanese, mostly civilians, have died in the strikes. The mounting toll, compounded by Sunday's bombing of the Lebanese village of Qana in which 54 civilians died, has fueled international outcry against Israel's tactics in the three-week-old war.

Israel says its strikes destroy Hizbollah infrastructure and stop rocket attacks that have killed 56 and caused large-scale evacuations in Israel.

HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth said in the many cases of civilian Lebanese deaths investigated by the rights group, the location of Hizbollah members or their weapons stores appeared to have no bearing on the areas attacked.

"Hizbollah fighters must not hide behind civilians. That's an absolute. But the image that Israel has promoted of such shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong," he said in the statement.

The report said that included strikes against civilian vehicles fleeing the violence in southern Lebanon, which Israel says is the targeting of Hizbollah arms and their transport routes.

"Israeli forces have fired with warplanes and artillery on dozens of civilian vehicles, many flying white flags," it said.

"However, none of the evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch or reported to date by independent media sources indicate that any of the attacks on vehicles documented in the report resulted in Hizbollah casualties or the destruction of weapons."

HRW said it based its report on interviews with survivors of attacks, visits to blast sites and information from hospitals, aid groups, Lebanon's government and Israel's defense forces.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 36