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 - beamcnally
« on: November 28, 2008, 10:04:39 AM »
I know this is old but I feel like addressing it because I'm bored and jolted by the idiotic reasoning of the poster who dismisses the LSAT and the value of a non-T4 school (notice I didn't say T1, I only singled out T4's as being generally insulting to legal education). I messed up my freshman year...when I was 18 years old. To preface, I'm not justifying that in any way, just stating a fact. My GPA will never get me into a T14 now, but as someone who woke up and smelled the coffee after freshman year and realized this was the rest of my life I was f'ing around with, I got my act together. As a mature woman, I got nothing below 3.8 for the next four semesters and began studying for the LSAT the beginning of the summer before my senior year. I studied for three solid months and worked to pay for a Kaplan class. I'm not great at standardized tests but I knew I didn't want to end up at Nova or NESL for a sub-par legal education so I worked my butt off. As a result, I broke 160 and now have already been accepted to two top tier schools and it's only November...So stop carrying on about the LSAT not being a measure of how you will deliver in law school. Stop acting as though these places aren't the cash cows that they indisputably are! These degree mills are rip-offs that graduate (or kick out, apparently) people who don't even feel like preparing for the LSAT! The LSAT is a very difficult test. I believe it is designed to test two things: 1) Obviously, whether you have the basic methodical/logical/deductive thinking skills conducive to learning the processes of the law, and 2)Whether you are extremely intelligent, and therefore inherently capable of law school work (the types who go in cold and make a 170) or whether you feel like working really hard for many hours...you know...kind of like you have to do when you get to law school. Okay, I've wasted a good 20 minutes of my time now. I just got a little angry. Lo siento.
Man, I love 0L speak!
« on: October 11, 2008, 05:17:10 PM »
bonuses are taxed at the same as your ordinary income. The only exception would be if the bonus is bug enough to push you into the next tax bracket, then your tax rate will go up and hence more taxes on the bonus, the max tax rate is 35%, but if you are just starting, you wont be in that bracket yet, but the increase of tax would be either from 25% to 28% or 28% to 33% depending on your income. Thanks Federal Income Tax.
he and i are talking two different scenerios.
I am referring to IMMEDIATELY at the time you get your bonus check. you WILL be taxed heavier than normal.
He is referring to come tax day to even everyone up. at that time that bonus check will be averaged out and you will see a regular tax hit, unless, like he said, it pushes you into a higher bracket.
Are you talking about the income that's withheld from the check by your employer? That's just employer withholding, not a final tax determination of what you'll owe at the end of the year. So, an employer might withhold a higher percentage of your bonus check (because it typically exceeds normal income), but ultimately it's considered part of gross income.
A bonus isn't taxed any differently than ordinary income just because it's called a "bonus." It might push you into a higher tax bracket, but who gives a *&^%? It only affects the amount of money over a certain dollar amount, not all of your income. See http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
« on: August 03, 2008, 11:56:19 AM »
138 is likely her IQ. The 155 was probably the raw score she received on the first practice MBE she took, before law school.
« on: August 03, 2008, 11:17:09 AM »
Just had to pipe in here....T4's exist for a reason - so people like me can go to law school. Now before you all start making jokes, here is my story...
I am a 35 yr old mother of 4 who went back and finished her BA two years ago. I have a 155 IQ and graduated from high school with a 4.0 then I went to a great college on a full ride scholarship and failed out (I was young and only interested in partying). As a result, I had one horrible GPA. I dropped out with only a year left. When I went back to school (as a much wiser adult), I was able to maintain a 4.0 GPA. However, this was NOT enough to bring my GPA up. My school had me listed as graduating with a 3.0 but thanks to the LSDAS they "calculated" my GPA at a dismal 2.2. Who the hell lets someone into law school with a 2.2 GPA??? You guessed it! Cooley.
Not only was I accepted, but because of their generous scholarship program I was awarded a 75% scholarship for my LSAT score. Now was Cooley my first choice? Of course not. It's not anyone's. But what Cooley did was offer me a chance. Don't get me wrong, they do a lot of things I don't agree with (like dismissing students for falling below a 2.0 when they have a 2.0 curve for starters!) but I have worked me ass off, am in the top 1/3 of my class and am halfway through lawschool.
You all can disrespect Cooley all you want but here in Michigan, Cooley grads are a force to be reckoned with. Recent bar passage scores were damn close to University of Michigan's and Cooley grads are known throughout the state to be fierce inside and outside the courtroom. If you are going to make it here, you better be tough and be passionate about the law.....you won't surive otherwise.
So bright you can't even remember your IQ...
I am a very bright person with an IQ of 138 who screwed up in undergrad the first time around. I went back 10 years later and finished my BA. I had a 4.0 over my last three semesters in undergrad, but it wasn't enough to pull up my earlier grades SO I came to Cooley because they gave me a chance. I will always be eternally greatful for them for that.
« on: November 24, 2007, 09:17:20 PM »
Newer associates, how are you handling your money? How much room do the student debt, taxes, rent, etc., leave for fun with those big salaries? I read an article in the National Jurist about how taxes (as high as 50% in NY city after fed, state and local taxes) and student loan payments are leaving many new associates with financial hardship in spite of the $160,000 salaries. Sup?
« on: October 17, 2007, 12:39:32 PM »
The school is a joke b/c it is faith-based? What is wrong with natural law? Without natural law, law is relative. The law presupposes absolutes which do not exist in positive law circles.
« on: March 29, 2007, 07:26:54 PM »
The one positive of going to Wisconsin is that you don't have to take the Wisconsin bar. However, I don't believe that makes up for the weather or the fact that you have to deal with overrated Big Ten sports, though Notre Dame is equally awful in sports. I would also take the ND alumni network any day; Golden Domers tend to look out for one another.
Yeah but how many graduates stay in Wisconsin? ND has been slipping in sports, lately, but I'm optimistic for this year!
« on: November 27, 2007, 10:40:49 PM »
I read an article in the National Jurist the other day about how new associates are struggling financially in spite of the market salaries because of school loans and the high cost of living in the major markets. The article stated that in NY, after "state and federal taxes as well as a sizable city wage," associates' salaries are cut by 50%. The article tacked on loan payments and other costs of living to this number and said many students end up in the negative each month. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cypress/nationaljurist1107/index.php?startid=22
But when I do the math taking into account taxes, loan payments and bills in my future firm's city, it still seems like I have quite a bit of money left over. I realize there are unforeseeable expenses, but it still doesn't seem that I'll be struggling by any means. So, what's it like guys? Are you stretched financially at all? Are loans, taxes, rent, etc. really that big of a burden? Is there money left to spend/invest?
I read this same article. I'd also be interested in what you guys think.
« on: October 19, 2007, 10:29:52 PM »
What difference does it make where the advice giving Wayne grads fall in the class? You first talk about lawyers from Wayne and UM telling FUTURE law students (don't know where they're going to fall in the class yet) to take Wayne over UM because the tuition is cheaper and they will get the same jobs. These future law students don't have rankings yet.
You then say that one has to be in the top 20% at Wayne to get these jobs. So that would mean the lawyers would be telling the future law students, "you should take Wayne over UM because of the tuition, but you're going to have to be in the top 20% at Wayne to get the same job as any UM grad can get." Nobody would give this advice, and it's contradictory to what you first said as CLEARLY all the future Wayne grads and all the future UM grads will not get the "same jobs." Why would somebody tell someone that they should take a chance at a school where they only have a 20% chance of being in a postion where they could get a job at this firm.
Simply put, knowing that any UM grad can get a job at this firm and that only 20% of Wayne grads can get the same job, why would a lawyer say that a future law student should pick Wayne because this future law student will get the same job?