|
|
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 - JBBroadShot
1
« on: September 14, 2006, 09:03:40 AM »
Don't have the time to read all of the previous posts, so this may have already been said, but I worked as a paralegal at a top 5 firm before heading to law school. Your hours can be just as unpredictable as an attorney's. You may at times go home earlier depending on the situation, but if a deal comes up they need you to proof (corporate) or something actually goes to trial or a important brief is due (litigation) your ass is theirs. I say if you can handle some hours and the monotoney, and get into a good law school (and in turn a good firm), just go for the lawyer route. Same hours, better work, better future, much better pay.
2
« on: September 09, 2006, 07:10:08 PM »
It never ceases to amaze me that conservatives who control all 3 branches of government, the media (yes, the NY Times and Wash. Post are liberal, but have you seen Fox News's ratings? And no, CNN and MSNBC are not breaths of fresh air for the left), and public discourse, and have done so for a good while now, are still conviced they're just losing the political war in this country and no one understands them.
Plenty of law school women are conservative. Plenty of them are liberal. There are overall more liberal than conservative law students in both genders because, well, lawyers use logic. And so do liberals.
Ba-zing.
(Yes, the final conclusion is implied)
3
« on: August 28, 2006, 10:01:15 AM »
Section 3 people: the only reading we have at the moment is the materials in the packet Singer sent us and the pages Weinreb assigned, right? I've been looking at course sites and the like and haven't found anything else, but I want to make sure I didn't miss something.
4
« on: August 21, 2006, 12:47:40 PM »
Just got the Weinreb email. I was all excited about him after reading the BSA student reviews, but no laptop? Instant expectation and excitement downgrade in my book. Anyone heard what his reason is for this? Oh well, I'm strange and was looking more forward to Civ Pro and Torts anyway.
5
« on: August 17, 2006, 06:45:30 PM »
Just found out I'm in Section 3. Not thrilled about the 8:50 . . . but at least Fridays look relatively light. Any word/thoughts on the profs?
6
« on: July 26, 2006, 12:58:11 PM »
I'm so impatient. I just wish it would be the end of August already. Which is really sad, considering that I'm taking all of July and August as a vacation.  
I'm in the same boat, all this time off and I still can't wait to get started. Well, I guess we're a little masochistic anyway for wanting to go to law school in the first place. Little off-topic, but for those of you borrowing both stafford and GradPlus/HELP loans, have you had the full loan amount applied to your July E-bill yet? I got an email with a link to sign the MPN for my GradPlus, but after signing last week I still have only the stafford applied to my account.
7
« on: July 25, 2006, 07:11:43 PM »
UCLA class of '05 here, 1L this fall (deferred a year). Curious if anyone else is planning to try and catch whatever Bruin games are available in Cambridge, maybe try and get a group of Bruin faithful to watch the games? Also, is anyone thinking about heading to South Bend for the Notre Dame game? I figure that'll be my one trip away from law school for the first semester.
8
« on: October 04, 2005, 04:39:22 PM »
Again, my point is that numbers can keep you out, but don't by themselves get you in. My application was probably not strong enough to overcome having significantly lower numbers, but that does not entail that the numbers got me in. If numbers alone got you in, the acceptance rate with perfect numbers would be 100 percent. That's my point. People shouldn't slack because they have good numbers or despair because they're a little subpar. The rest of an application can indeed (and regularly does) overcome problems in the numbers area.
9
« on: September 30, 2005, 02:47:23 AM »
Well, Chiashu or LSAC numbers like those and youll see you are simply not a lock. Yes, relatively few with near-perfect numbers are rejected, but it most certainly happens and regularly so. That's my only point, that numbers won't GUARANTEE you admission, yet many still talk as if it does which is incorrect, IMHO. Thus, people should focus less on their numbers and more on the rest of the application, especially given the consensus point above that GPA is a very difficult thing to judge due to differences in grading between majors and schools.
As for my PS, I am a tough critic of myself and usually hate what I write, but it is one of the few things I've written I happen to think was rather good. I will not post it, however, sorry. I will say that I think it was definitely a boon to my application.
10
« on: September 26, 2005, 06:36:59 PM »
I'll admit that if your numbers are sufficiently high, you will have a significantly easier time with apps. But, it is not true to say that if you nail a 99th percentile LSAT and have a 3.75+ GPA youll waltz into most schools (referring here to t14). First, 3.75 isn't exceedingly high and part of what I meant by "numbers aren't everything" is that not all numbers are equal. A Harvard UGrad GPA isn't worth as much as a numerically equal Michigan or Cal or UCLA GPA due to grade inflation (don't believe there's inflation, do some research on avg. grades issued at the top schools). Second, many students from public schools talk about their GPAs unweighted since most publics don't count A+ as 4.33, whereas most privates do. People need to be clear whether they're talking weighted or unweighted when it comes to GPA for admissions. The LSAC does equalize GPA values for letter grades, but it's not always clear in some statistics whether the LSAC calculation is being used. Third, this site is not representative of an unbiased sample of applicants and there are indeed far more than 2 people with 175+ 3.75+ numbers getting rejected from Harvard every year. Finally, if you want real proof numbers aren't everything, consider the fact that Yale accepts approximately 250 people per year, about 50 of which turn them down. Yet, Yale's class, surprisingly, is not all 4.0 180s. Rather, it is, in fact (relatively) far from it. Yale itself admits that if it wanted a class of entirely 180 4.0s, it could have it, but Yale chooses not to, meaning they do infact turn down a (again, relatively) significant number of people with perfect numbers (or very close to it) in favor of individuals that are a little more interesting but a little weaker numbers-wise. Harvard and bigger schools will obviously take more higher-number students, but they too turn down many near-perfect-numbers applicants in favor of others, so numbers are not a guaranteed walk by far (with the exception of NYU which is a numbers whore). The lower you go on the rankings, the more numbers will help, but no matter how great your numbers are, they will never be a guarantee, and at many schools are indeed a factor which mostly only prevent admission but do not gain it.
|
Discussion
Resources