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 - squidz
« on: July 24, 2003, 03:16:24 PM »
Yeah, the problem is that I can't put moot court on my resume until AFTER the initial bidding process . . .
We know that all journals have notified people, but does anyone know if all of the journals are DONE notifying people? Is it safe to say that no news by now means no hope? Did anybody here anything as late as today?
Also, I can't find the e-mail address for law review -- does anyone have it handy?
« on: July 31, 2003, 11:28:36 AM »
I love that.
Moot Court anticipated 2003
Partnership at Palmer & Dodge anticipated 2011
Nobel Prize anticipated 2020
Intergalactic ambassadorship anticipated 2030
« on: July 31, 2003, 11:10:02 AM »
SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH: Don't take it personally. 2Ls and 3Ls ARE omnipotent -- you'll learn how to smite people during your second semester of civil procedure. They'll teach you to walk through walls in torts.
Nobody said that a person who wants to make money is an evil whore; nobody said that pursuit of a high paying legal job is bad; nobody made any character judgments at all: they just said that a legal career is intense and that IF money your sole motivation, then you might be happier in a less stressful career. That's all. There are a lot of good things about law school too . . .
MT: Is THAT the secret? And here I was wasting all of my time walking through walls.
« on: July 28, 2003, 09:31:30 AM »
Bah! Law School Confidential sounds like a steaming pile. Be skeptical.
Of course you don't have to be in the "top 14" to get a big salary. That doesn't stand up empirically. There are tons of BUSL grads with big bank accounts. I'm just beginning the job search myself, so maybe I've got blinders on for the sake of my own sanity, but only the top 14? That just can't be!
First of all, top 14 according to whom? U.S. News? Leiter? You probably mean U.S. News -- I tell you what: of the lists out there, U.S. News is the shiniest and the most famous (and the source of all kinds of amusing BUSL neuroses), BUT it's REALLY NOT the be all end all in the legal market. There are just too many variables involved in getting a job: location, personal charm, grit, nepotism, &c.
Also, why the "top 14"? That's pretty arbitrary. It's not like first 14 are teaching law while the rest are teaching VCR repair.
Will you have a better chance finding a job if you go to Harvard? Will you have a better chance if you're in the top 10%? Will you have a better chance getting a summer associate spot if you're dad is a partner at Ropes & Gray? Will you have a better chance of getting a clerkship if you save Souter from a hungry bear? The answer to all of these questions is, of course, DUH.
Are you doomed if all you have is a boring J.D. from BU? Only a little. The painful answer is that a J.D. from ANY school is only a tool. It will help open a few doors. No matter who you are though, you still have to go through the arduous miserable process of selling yourself. You haven't chosen an easy career. Even if you are the Harvard grad with the silver spoon and Souter on a bear-skin rug, it's not easy. You will be tested. You will be ranked. You will compare yourself to your peers. You will doubt yourself. It will never stop.
The job that pays you 125K a year will require you to work 90 hours a week just to keep your head above water. There aren't any secrets to success. There aren't any short cuts. Not only aren't there any people in the top 10 who didn't work hard, there aren't any people in the top HALF who didn't work hard. Guess what. All the kids in the bottom half were working really hard too.
The ethereal fantasy of big money is one of the methods we use to divert ourselves in this grueling lifestyle, but if money is the only thing compelling you to go to lawschool, get out now. Don't do it. There are easier ways to get rich.
I'll stop ranting now . . .
To answer your question more directly, if you go into the private sector with a J.D. from BUSL, the odds are pretty good that you will be able to make a lot of money.
« on: August 05, 2003, 10:43:46 AM »
There is a big difference between FEELING like you have to keep up with someone who says something "smart" in class, and ACTUALLY doing well on the test. The secret to good grades is not spending money.
Upperclassmen aren't taking time out of their lives to go to orientation so that they can lie to 1Ls. That doesn't make sense. What do they stand to gain from that? There are only two reasons to help out at orientation: 1) to give new law students some first hand perspective as they transition into their new lives; and 2) to meet people of the opposite sex -- there is nothing evil about either goal, and I bet the average greeter wants to do both . . .
Also, there is nothing arrogant about saying "rising 2L", that's what we're freaking called in the summertime. It doesn't mean anything other than person-who-has-completed-his-or-her-first-year-of-law-school: way easier to say rising 2L.
I think there is too much humility in this place. Arrogance is a big taboo in law school. I think it'd be more comfortable if everyone was arrogant -- walking on eggshells all the time is silly. Celebrate your acomplishments alone?!? That's a miserable celebration.
« on: July 28, 2003, 02:21:05 PM »
I disagree with OSU professor.
If JUST ME is in the top 10% of his class, then he shouldn't change his methods. That would be an inefficient use of his time.
That said, I also wonder about the quality of JUST ME's school. I had to work hard to do well my first year, and I don't know anyone who was successful without a lot of effort. But, I didn't study for the sake of study. If I could have cracked the top 10% without cracking a book, I would have been stupid to spend hours in the library anyway. Maybe JUST ME is just a genius -- you can't hold that against him.
JUST ME's study habits aren't poor if they're effective. If I had been in JUST ME's class, I wouldn't have cared if he didn't work hard, and I wouldn't have cared if he was a "parasite". I would have seen that as an advantage for me -- I would have had the same access to class notes that he had AND a deeper understanding from my work outside of class. Often knowledge of cases became a convenient shorthand on the tests -- I didn't have to go into a lengthy black letter explanation of some idea when I could just allude to Asahi, or Tarasoff, or Lee Optical, or whatever, and that saved valuable time.
Just do what you have to do to learn the material. If you can absorb it through osmosis like JUST ME, you're really lucky, if you have to work hard, then work hard. You're not in class to impress your peers or to impress your professor; you're in class to learn the law. That's all that matters.
I don't see why it's not possible that JUST ME could turn out to be an exceptional lawyer. But, then, I don't have OSU Professor's experience. If OSU professor is right, that just goes to show how ridiculous and arbitrary the whole system is . . . a bunch of parasites in the top 10% like JUST ME who are aparently destined to be bad lawyers will be working for Ropes & Gray while the ethical plodding bottom half of the class make ends meet at temp agencies . . .