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 - veganvenus

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
Current Law Students / Health Care Gap
« on: June 20, 2008, 08:31:53 PM »
To graduating 3Ls:

Does anyone else have a gap in their health care coverage?  My law school health plan ends a few months before my firm plan begins. Not only don't I want to be stuck if something bad happens, but I also don't want to get screwed if future insurers point to the gap in refusing to treat something they attribute to a pre-existing condition.

Anyone know whether states have plans for these?  If any companies have affordable gap coverage?

Current Law Students / Re: Why is Cooley Law so despised?
« on: June 20, 2008, 08:28:40 PM »
It's interesting. Though I view the idea of failing out so many people on purpose to be horrible, it's better than them not failing them out and then having them be saddled with 3 years of debt instead of just the 1.

I always chalked it up to trying to protect (to some degree) their bar passage rates.  The obvious alternative would be to not admit people they don't think will pass.  While the optimist might say that they think their first year is a better predictor of who will pass, my cynical side just sees it as grabbing one year's tuition money from people they would have otherwise rejected for this purpose.

Current Law Students / Re: Long exams
« on: May 11, 2007, 03:00:17 PM »
If I was your prof, I would fail you just for making me read that much. Then again, if I was your prof, I'd probably have a 10 page limit to keep gunners like you from wasting my time with a 32 page essay.

I only spent about six hours writing it.  I would be very surprised if I didn't have one of the shortest exams in the class. 

Last year I turned in 17 pages for a three hour exam; everyone I spoke to wrote over 20.  That's how we roll, here.

Did you just use "safe" and "the bronx" in the same sentence?   ;D

Well, it all depends on who you ask, since it hinges on considering Riverdale to be part of the Bronx.

Current Law Students / Re: Smoking Ban
« on: May 11, 2007, 11:00:49 AM »
You're still not saying what part of the constitution you interpret as "states can't legislate against taste".

Current Law Students / Re: Long exams
« on: May 11, 2007, 10:50:26 AM »
I had a 24-hour takehome exam with a 5-page limit.

Brutal, just brutal.

One week, three page limit.  The opposite of brutal, but at that point I was just *lost*. Especially since it was just one very broad policy question, no issue spotting.

At least I was able to take all the time I had slotted for it and use to to study for my 8-hour.

Hey hey hey, not so fast. I feel that I must speak up for the Newark market since I currently live here because they don't have hideously below-market pay.  The average for Newark firms is about $135,000/yr (see Latham & Watkins, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, etc.), which, when you consider the hideously below-market cost of living for NJ when compared to the hideously above-market cost of living for NY, you are actually saving a bundle.

Granted - I know zero about the Newark market.  I was just referring to the numbers quoted for one Newark firm, which were disgusting even for 5 years ago.

The COL thing is a myth though - one premised on the idea that everyone who works in NY lives in Manhattan.  There are lots of safe and affordable places to live in the Bronx, Queens, and maybe in Brooklyn.  If you're willing to sacrifice neighborhood prestige, you can even find a place with a 15 minute commute and very cool restaurants.  Considering the relative livability of Newark, I'd imagine a lot of those associates live in the same neighborhoods as the commuter set anyway.

Either way, a $25k/year paycut seems awfully steep for an office less than an hour away.

Current Law Students / Re: Long exams
« on: May 11, 2007, 08:37:34 AM »
I had an eight hour admin exam yesterday, and ended up with 32 pages if I had double spaced. So I agree that that seems a bit short.  Most I have taken had page limits until this one.

And yes, some *very* good schools have eight hour exams :)

Current Law Students / Re: Harvard vs. Fordham
« on: May 10, 2007, 03:06:49 PM »
Not just the legal world, but the whole world. You never know what might happen. Have you visited the Harvard Law campus and met some of the folks there? Go to Fordham and tell them you chose it over Harvard. Your fellow students will laugh at you because they'll think you're joking.

My guess is they would think he is lying.

You won't be able to go straight to an in-house gig - they don't want to train baby lawyers.  Most will require a few years of attorney experience.

Your best bet is to work your way up through BigLaw, albeit at a firm with a good entertainment law practice.  Your chances of getting the kind of job that will lead you on the right path are better with an HLS degree.  You can absolutely get it at Fordham, but only if you do well there.  Are you a gambling man?  You're basically taking the guaranteed big bucks return / career you would get from HLS and betting it on the possibility of saving a fraction of that money by going with the scholarship and praying to be the best there. 

The fact that one is in NYC is absolutely irrelevant.  You will interview wherever you want for summers, and spend them where you choose.  Unless you're planning to work during law school, generally a bad idea for FT anyway, the location of each school doesn't affect career prospects. If you get an interview, they will likely fly you out anyway.  Will it be more *fun* to be in NYC than Cambridge?  Insofar as law students actually have free time, absolutely.  But that's only a small part of the equation.

I agree with the previous posters that you may well change your mind as to what area; Harvard will keep more of your options open.  Plus - free coffee!  Go for the free coffee.  And in 20 minutes, free chair massage.  Harvard.  Definitely Harvard.

Current Law Students / Re: Smoking Ban
« on: May 10, 2007, 02:55:09 PM »
It seemingly is too attentuated from interstate commerce to be even addressed Federally.  Unless you wanted to argue that the tobacco farmers are being forced out of business in North Carolina, because smokers cant smoke at the Applebee's in Ohio, which is pretty weak.

Of course, they did make a similar argument to justify federal regulations of places of public accommodation on the issue of racism.  Bought meat interstate?  Your restaurant is now covered under this law on the basis of interstate commerce!  After all, it might affect a minority's decision to travel.

Of course:
1. Those were the pre-Lopez days when the 10th Amendment had been severely weakened by a broad interpretation of the commerce power,
2. The court bent over backwards to uphold anti-segregation stuff; that holding may not have the same force out of that context.
3. Katzenbach might have had some invisible punch from the Civil Rights amendments.

Ultimately, I think you're right.  I just thought it was damn funny that your seemingly ridiculous hypothetical had actually been justified in court :)

Funny though - I don't see why they couldn't use the Commerce Clause to ban tobacco altogether.  So they could outlaw it, but not regulate where you can use it.  It makes sense if you're a law student, but not necessarily otherwise.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6