« on: August 17, 2014, 03:52:01 PM »
There's always lower scores to weed out, scholarships(?), adds to apparent legitimacy of school through a formalized process that ABA schools use...take your pick.
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 - Groundhog
« on: August 16, 2014, 07:05:36 AM »
I think the toughest part is not just your GPA but your lack of courses for credit. Whether unfair or not, the credit by exam does not reflect academic learning and there can be a certain lack of rigor associated with credit/no credit courses.
As others have said, you are a splitter, but this is complicated by the fact that so few courses for credit doesn't really tell much of a story in terms of academic history.
Provided you meet the requirements, you will likely be admitted to an ABA program with that LSAT score, but I'd definitely focus on discussing your businesses in your application. From an admissions perspective, other than your LSAT, that is the strongest component of your application. As you noted, you are a little older than some, so this would fit in well with that profile.
Water law seems pretty essential these days in California...but I digress.
My 1L year consisted of the following:
Law & Ethics
Legal Writing & Research
Con Law I
Legal Writing & Research
Adding all the CA bar subjects but skipping Cal Courts/Procedures as you can learn that in a couple days, you'd add Con Law II, Remedies, Gifts/Wills/Trusts(may be more than one class), Evidence, Community Property, Business Associations(I forgot I took that!). That's pretty close to a full second year and it doesn't include any specialized classes like finance, securities or real estate that one can take as early as first semester of 2L year.
I also see the benefit to the profession and student to having a 2nd summer that isn't dedicated to studying for the bar that can be used for internships. Rising 3Ls are much more knowledgeable about the law than people who just finished 1L year and have had a chance to take electives that might be much more relevant to where they're working.
Perhaps reducing the requirement to 2 1/2 years and allowing students to sit for the February bar exam would be a reasonable compromise. That way, you get to take electives, do a 2nd(or 1st) internship, still get out of school and take the bar six months earlier. Thoughts?
I would give USD the slight edge because it is the best law school in the city, if you're interested in practicing in San Diego. Going to law school locally can count in both the public and private sectors. In LA, Pepperdine is up against Loyola, SW, USC and UCLA.
I agree. Electives at the graduate/professional level are an absurd waste of time. Just a way to get more tuition. Most students would be far better served spending that time learning how to draft a will or living trust, review a contract, or filing a motion. Our legal education is almost entirely academic, and needs more practical training.
To play devil's advocate here...you mean electives like Gifts/Wills/Trusts, Community Property (if applicable), Evidence, more Constitutional law? All of those are on the California bar exam and while my classes weren't bar prep, it certainly helped taking them. On the other hand, some people might consider their elective in secured transactions essential to their career, but I didn't take it and it'll never come up.
That is a tough situation. If your family is generally supportive of your desire to attend law school, perhaps you should explain it to them as an investment. The time you take studying well for the LSAT can make a huge difference in your score. The LSAT is very learnable, although not absolutely.
Treating the LSAT, law school, and your time as an investment: Each point on the LSAT opens up additional admissions opportunities and scholarship money worth potentially tens of thousands of dollars and give you additional freedom in career choice.