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 - Burning Sands
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 22
« on: January 02, 2006, 11:27:50 PM »
what Burning Sands says is golden.
What up Burnin - its Bubbazzz from the pre-law side, glad to hear you are doing well.
Bubbazz, what's going on man?
It seems to me that in tier 1 schools basically, Engineers have an easier time finding jobs outside the top 10%. Is this true?
Do you mean to say outside the top 10% of their class? I would say this is most likely true because of the IP field, which doesn't really require you to be in the top 10% of your law school class...
...HOWEVER...what Lincolnsgrandson said is 100% true. They do ask for your undergrad transcript in IP firms. I haven't been to an IP law firm interview yet where they didn't ask to see the undergrad grades, so make sure you kick ass in undergrad. Just being an engineer is not enough.
« on: December 25, 2005, 12:58:32 PM »
I graduated with an EE degree and worked as an engineer before law school.. I think that the subject matter and the application of the law is much easier than engineering.. In fact, I sometimes sit in class and wonder how people are not picking up the concepts..
The issue I do have is with the grading system in law school... In engineering, if you got it and could do the problem then you usually could bank on getting a good grade on the exam.. In law, your grade is dependent on whether or not you can apply the law better than everyone else.. For me, this is a complete departure from what I'm used to and very hard to get used to..
I'm a 1L who just finished by first round of exams, I was wondering if any older engineering/law students had incite into how they did on exams and how their grades compared to engineering grades
You hit the nail on the head. The grading system is night and day. I should have been clear about this in my last post when I advised attacking law school like engineering.
What unlv chick says is true which ties into the grading system. As an engineer, please do not equate studying long hours with success in and of itself. It worked in engineering, it does NOT work in law school. I sorta had to find that out the hard way. Like somebody said earlier, the object in engineering is the end result. You study the formulas and scenarios, plugging in numbers for variables, and presto chango, the answer is 1.21 Giga-Watts. So, as an engineer, you might be inclined to intuitively attack law school by studying all the rules of law so that you can plug in all the facts and, presto chango, the answer is liable. Not good.
Nobody really tells you that your success walks hand in hand with your ability to write a law school exam, and by that I mean, your ability to perform complex legal analysis. The "A" in IRAC, if you will. The "C" is not where the points are. The few engineers/science background people that I know who did not make this distinction did have a hard time. For those of us who by the grace of God did make the distinction, law school then became a little more like home. You can attack law school like an engineer, you just have to make sure you are attacking the right area.
So to answer lawgirl's question, once I was able to beef up my analytical skills on the exams, I and the few other engineers I knew in my class did very well. At the conclusion of 1L, a couple of the engineers transfered to T14 law schools and I ended up making the Law Review at my school.
« on: December 22, 2005, 01:08:06 PM »
I hold a B.S. in Architectural Engineering with 4 years of work experience and I'm a 2L in law school currently. I had the opportunity to attend the patent law interview fair this past summer in chicago and there were about 3 to 400 engineers who were attending various law school all across the country at this event. I ran into several of my old buddies from my engineering days who I had no idea were even thinking of going to law school, and we all talked about this very topic, which is harder, law school or engineering.
The two are difficult in different ways. As far as subject matter, engineering has got law school beat every day of the week and twice on sunday. When I went to get my engineering license, there were questions on that exam that I couldn't finish if I had an entire week and a study team. That's just the nature of the beast with engineering. You either get it, or you don't. And even when you get it, its still difficult. Law School subject matter is not rocket science. Anybody can get it with enough time.
However, law school is more difficult with regard to the overall academic experience. Engineers come from a background where you didn't need to be in the top 10% of your engineering class to get a good job. Just graduating with a B.S. is enough to find employment. Speaking from personal experience, my undergrad boasted a 100% placement rate for 6 consecutive years for its graduates, while simultatneously my major's average GPA was a 2.6. But it doesn't matter for engineering because as long as you can graduate you have a job. You don't need to make Engineering Review or anything like that. In law school you are pushed to make the grade. The law profession is a very credentials-oriented profession. Graduating with a 2.6 in law school = public interest work for you, buddy.
In addition to just job placement, the way law school is set up is more difficult than engineering with the socratic approach. The system is designed for you to teach yourself the law so that allegedly the smartest and brightest rise to the top. Engineering was difficult enough without the hastle of hiding the ball. This aspect makes law school more difficult to learn in and sets up a dynamic that actually forces you to think differently, whereas you didn't have to think differently to do engineering. You could do engineering assignments and go home and leave it behind. You can't leave the law behind in the same manner...thinking like a lawyer requires you to actually change your everyday way of thinking, even when you leave the classroom. Because of this, when you finish engineering, you are very knowledgable in engineering principles and applications - in contrast, when you finish your first year of law school you are more than knowledgable in legal principles, you actually view the world differently.
All the engineers in my law school class, including myself have done very well, especially in the rules oriented classes like Civil Procedure and with property future interests. So I agree with the previous posters, just attack law school like you attacked engineering and you'll be ok.
« on: August 15, 2005, 02:04:52 PM »
You guys are serious in here! Much respect.
« on: August 14, 2005, 03:00:32 PM »
We now have confirmation. She is a psycho.
you guys ain't right!
Although I gotta admit its kinda strange to be worrying about being elected to speak at a class graduation when you haven't met the class yet
« on: August 14, 2005, 10:37:16 AM »
that's huge. congrats
« on: August 14, 2005, 10:36:14 AM »
Yes you can do all three, but as far as what employers think, they could care less that you were involved in the SBA. You can pretty much expect that Law Review and Moot Court are then only extra-curricular's that stand out to law firms.
I think Law Review and Moot Court would rank ahead of SBA as far as employers are concerned. You could do more than 1, just make sure you don't stretch yourself too thin.
Although I'm interested in what Mary said and have similar, albeit distant, feelings about stuff like graduation, I would like to hear more about what people think about SBA v. Moot Court v. Law Review and can you do more than one (although probably never all three)? ::Longest run-on sentance ever, over:: Thanks for the help!
No problem troll.
Yeah and you're obviously a troll judging by your last 4 posts that are ridiculous one liners.
Obviously she is a psycho.
Thank you for coming down to my level. That was easy.
« on: August 12, 2005, 04:07:50 PM »
It seems to be a modern trend for Law Reviews to use the combo approach of grades & write on. I was reading an article somewhere addressing this topic, and it was saying that over the decades, law schools started noticing that high grades alone did not necessarily mean that the student possessed a mastery of legal research and writing, thus the writing competition component. Employers know this. They want and need legal research & writing robots to drive the billables up. Grades are a good accomplishment, but don't speak towards the meat & potatoes that employers need - AKA: your ability to do legal research and writing.
Harvard law school, which literally invented Law Review, used to just require high grades to make it on, but now they've changed their policy to include high grades AND a mandatory write-on competition for everybody in order to make it onto their law review.
« on: August 03, 2005, 11:03:24 AM »
All bullsh!t aside, PROPERTY
is the hardest 1L course you can take.
Property and Civ Pro are generally considered the two toughest because of their complexity, but Property wins out in the end b/c the rules of Civil Procedure are more easily memorized due to the fact that you see how they all fit together from procedures before trial, during trial, and after trial. Its the practical application of what we do as lawyers.
The substantive law behind property unfortunately does not fit into the same "big picture" category. Future Interests could be (and sometimes is) a class all by itself. Its all about who gets to keep property, when they get the property, what they can and can't do with the property, the rights of property owners, etc. and much of it is contrary to what you thought about property as a layperson - such as the concept of adverse possession which basically says I can set up shop on your land for X years without paying you a dime and if you don't kick me off it legally becomes my land.
« on: August 01, 2005, 01:04:59 PM »
what is the LSAT?
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 22