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 - hotdiggity

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
11
Current Law Students / Re: What field of law is least stressful?
« on: July 05, 2006, 07:59:46 AM »
I know working for the government in criminal law, either as a DA or PD is not as stressful, as corp law.  A great deal of people actually enjoy it.  The hours are a lot better (you're only going to work at the most 60 hours usually more like 40-45).  However the pay is low.

12
Current Law Students / Re: Crappy Grades/Strong LSAT
« on: July 05, 2006, 07:55:33 AM »
Hi Everyone. I will add a foreword to my question to put everything into context
1) I'm from Canada (but open to law school in Canada/US)
2) I am completing an Undergrad (Business if it matters - 4 year Honours Degree)
3) I have bad grades (a B? My school doesn't do the GPA thing. We have leter grades (A+,A,A-)
4) I have a strong LSAT (its about the median for say Cornell or Berkley)
5) I have been in a coop program at school.  4 months work/4 months schooling (for which I'll be graduating one semester later, finishing in August, 2007 and applying for Sept 2007).  I have worked in a major international Bank on the trading floor (money markets).  When I gradute, I will have 3 x 4 months of work experience (12 mos total) + my degree.  Also a great deal of volunteer/extra curriculars.

So my questions
1) LLM or JD? Which do you need to write the bar/practise in the States? Which is recommended?
2) Good LSAT/Bad Grades.  Should I still try somewhere where my LSAT matches or go by Grades?
3) What the heck is my GPA?
4) Any general advice?

Unfortunately I am not very acquainted with lawyers, nor is there anyone I can talk to especially in my school (which doesn't have law, or very many graduate prgorams besides an MBA)
Any words of wisdom/advice will be very greatly appreciated! Thanks!

LLM or JD, the JD is the base law degree, think of it as a phd and you're LLM as your post doc.  You can not attend an LLM program with out some type of law degree in the US or oversees.

From what I've gathered a good LSAT will overshadow a poor GPA in most cases, all schools have a ratio of LSAT to GPA and you can see how important both are.  When you register for LSDAS you can find information on their site.

If you have a B you have a 3.0 GPA by most standards

You need to figure out what region you want to work in and the school type you want to spend the next three years.  Do you want to live in the northeast US or California.  Also realize that there are tiers and different schools will be able to afford you more mobility when looking for your first job.  For example, in Philly where I live, there are three differnt tiers of schools.  Penn will get you a job anywhere in the US, Temple not so much as Penn but still relativly strong and Widener will get you a good job in Philly or Delaware, but outside of that it will be difficult.  So you need to see where you want to practice and find a school accordingly.  Go to their websites, visit schools, talk to your advisors in undergrad.  You'll find a lot of people on this site are helpful and a lot are so insecure about themselves they will tear you down at every chance, don't let them affect you. 

you can message me if you have any questions, I just finished the getting into law school game this year and will answer any questions you have. 


Good Luck,

Damien

13
I was issued a citation for underage drinking when I was young and didn't disclose it on my app to Widener.  After realizing my mistake I mentioned it to them and they were completly cool with it, they say that only crimes that would keep you from the character and fitness from the bar will hurt your admission.  Unless you're trying to hide something, which in PA (where I will take the bar) is a near automatic permanent rejection. They said that at orientation the dean will say something about ammending an app and there's a line out the door of her office that afternoon.  The ealier you disclose the better, it won't hurt you unless it shows a pattern of lawlessness, or is a felony conviction.

14
Current Law Students / Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« on: June 26, 2006, 12:02:01 PM »

And to the dumba*s that made a comment about ADD at 28 - you can develop it at any age, whether or not you are still being educated. You can get 4.0's and 99% test scores your whole life and then suddenly find yourself having extreme difficulty. Do some research before you assume you know what you're critizing.

You have to show symptoms of impulsivity or inattention before the age of 7 for a diagnosis of ADHD.  While an adult can be diagnosed with ADHD the psychologist would have to do a retroactive diagnoses meaning that these symptons were there in childhood but never found out.  A mental health professional is typically reluctant to do so with students who were invloved in formal education due to the fact that someone else should have picked them up.  The issue of adult onset ADHD is a contraversial one right now, with some saying it can be that a person develops a new set they've never had before while another group saying it's not possible.  Currently the DSM still lists this disorder in the subsection Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood or Adolencence. And the APA has not recognized adult onset ADHD to be a valid disorder. The DSM is the publication that all mental disorders available for diagnostic are listed along with the minimum symptoms needed to meet such a diagnostic.  Its published and revised by the American Psychology Association. If it's not listed in the DSM then it basically isn't considered valid science until it gets in there. 

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/adhd.htm
if you want to read about ADHD. (formerly called ADD)

Behavenet is not summarizing DSM-IV - it is commentating on some medical views on the condition. True DSM-IV on the condition if very vague. Also, the medical community has expanded its diagnostic capability to combine the ADD/ADHD definition into one with three categories: "the DSM-IV identifies three sub-types of AD/HD, depending on the presence or absence of particular symptoms: Inattentive type, Hyperactive type, and Combined type."

Myth # 2: AD/HD is a Disorder of Childhood

Early discussions of AD/HD theorized that individuals outgrew the disorder (Ingram, Hechtman, & Morgenstein, 1999). This notion has been dispelled by long-term studies showing that anywhere from 70-80 percent of children with AD/HD exhibit significant signs of restlessness and distractibility into adolescence and young adulthood, while a large percentage suffer co-morbid psychiatric disorders, academic failure, and social isolation and/or rejection (Barkley et al., 1990; Barkley, 1998). Research estimates that 1.5 to 2 percent of adults have AD/HD (Hunt, 1997), and between two and six percent of adolescents have AD/HD (Murphy & Barkley, 1996). Cuffe et al. (2001) found that children with persistent AD/HD have more severe AD/HD and adverse risk factors later in life. Adverse factors impact the expression of AD/HD and increase the risk for associated disorders that compromise adjustment over the lifespan. Thus, AD/HD is a lifelong disorder that requires a developmental framework for appropriate diagnosis and treatment (Teeter, 1998).

The DSM-IV recognizes it is not only a development of childhood and does NOT specify age:

n children and teenagers, the symptoms must be more frequent or severe compared to other children the same age. In adults, the symptoms must affect the ability to function in daily life and persist from childhood.

In addition, the behaviors must create significant difficulty in at least two areas of life, such as home, social settings, school, or work. Symptoms must be present for at least six months.

Criteria for the three primary subtypes are:

AD/HD - Inattentive Type

    * Fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes.
    * Has difficulty sustaining attention.
    * Does not appear to listen.
    * Struggles to follow through on instructions.
    * Has difficulty with organization.
    * Avoids or dislikes tasks requiring sustained mental effort.
    * Loses things.
    * Is easily distracted.
    * Is forgetful in daily activities.

AD/HD - Hyperactive Type

    * Fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in chair.
    * Has difficulty remaining seated.
    * Runs about or climbs excessively.
    * Difficulty engaging in activities quietly.
    * Acts as if driven by a motor.
    * Talks excessively.
    * Blurts out answers before questions have been completed.
    * Difficulty waiting or taking turns.
    * Interrupts or intrudes upon others.

AD/HD - Combined Type

    * Individual meets both sets of inattention and hyperactive/impulsive criteria.

- http://www.help4adhd.org/en/treatment/guides/dsm

---

Also...as for your mark that the APA doesn't recognize adult onset AD/HD - they seem to have not made a comment either way. They do, however, recognize it can LAST a lifetime:

"Current research demonstrates that ADHD is a complex disorder that may affect someone across his or her entire life span." - http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pconstest.html

---

AD/HD is very misunderstood still. Maybe if people (not you, but in general) took the time to research it, these assumptions like the one you quoted wouldn't be made.

behavnet listed the disorder exactly as the DSM states it, I've checked both the DSM and 2 textbooks I have.  I never said the disorder was only present in children, rather that you must show signs of it in childhood for the disorder to be diagnosed.  What I was referring to was someone who stated that at 28 years old they developed ADHD and went from a genius to failing out of law school. The DSM states explicitly that you must show symptoms before 7 years old.  Not that you meet criterian but show some of the symptoms, you're correct in saying in can last a lifetime and I didn't dispute that fact.  However it is listed as a disorder, "first diagnosed in infancy, childhoold or adolescence." I've done my reserach I've written papers on ADHD, I have a psychology degree from one of the most respected psych programs on the east coast.  So I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to this.   

15
Current Law Students / Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« on: June 20, 2006, 09:40:02 AM »

And to the dumba*s that made a comment about ADD at 28 - you can develop it at any age, whether or not you are still being educated. You can get 4.0's and 99% test scores your whole life and then suddenly find yourself having extreme difficulty. Do some research before you assume you know what you're critizing.

You have to show symptoms of impulsivity or inattention before the age of 7 for a diagnosis of ADHD.  While an adult can be diagnosed with ADHD the psychologist would have to do a retroactive diagnoses meaning that these symptons were there in childhood but never found out.  A mental health professional is typically reluctant to do so with students who were invloved in formal education due to the fact that someone else should have picked them up.  The issue of adult onset ADHD is a contraversial one right now, with some saying it can be that a person develops a new set they've never had before while another group saying it's not possible.  Currently the DSM still lists this disorder in the subsection Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood or Adolencence. And the APA has not recognized adult onset ADHD to be a valid disorder. The DSM is the publication that all mental disorders available for diagnostic are listed along with the minimum symptoms needed to meet such a diagnostic.  Its published and revised by the American Psychology Association. If it's not listed in the DSM then it basically isn't considered valid science until it gets in there. 

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/adhd.htm
if you want to read about ADHD. (formerly called ADD)

16
 
I don't feel this is entrapment because the person was already predisposed to commit the crime and took overt actions that facilitated the crime. For entrapment to occur you must show that without the police you would have had no predisposition to commit the crime, and but for the actions of the police the crime would not have occured.  This is negated when the person, after already hearing of the "victim" being a minor still attempted to have sexual encounters with her.  The police must entice or entrap an otherwise unwilling party to commit a crime they otherwise would have not commited.  Also worth noting, the burden of proof in any criminal defense will then shift to the defense and must be properly raised and argued by the defendants legal counsel. This person one could argue was trolling the internet for victims and just happened to have bad luck with whom he found.  To be honest I am glad the person was arrested and will be tried, but then again that may be the prosecutor in me. 

17
Current Law Students / Re: Czechs blow out lethargic U.S.
« on: June 14, 2006, 09:42:42 PM »


"You're kidding yourself if you think that this U.S. team is highly talented ... It's simply not as good as the elite of Europe and South America. We're not a bad team, and this was without doubt a very poor performance, but to compare ourselves to Brazil, Argentina, England, etc. that's simply not realistic. We let ourselves down today, and only 2-3 players can look in the mirror tonight. I hope they've learned a big lesson."

"That's just it, our passing is horrible. You can get away with always trying to lob the ball down the field over the defense to a quick forward in the MLS and have some success. But not at this level. You actually must know how to pass and work the ball in the middle."


Many if not most of the US team plays it's club ball in Europe.  I can get stats if you need them.

What a catch 22 for me on Saturday.  I am Italian-American and I love both countries I think I'm going to root for the U.S. then hope they beat the Czechs.  yeah that's what i'll do.  GO Stars and Strips

18
Current Law Students / Re: StrictlyLiable LSAT Score
« on: June 14, 2006, 06:25:01 PM »
what was my score, well lets just say my scoring band is in the poll

no one cares about your LSAT score.  In fact I don't care about anyone elses LSAT score, not even mine, it wasn't good but it got me into Widener and basically only Widener.  It did it's job, i'm going to law school  154 then again I only applied to 4 school so i didn't really expand my options.

19

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell . . . maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."

threre are miserable dentists and doctors, probably not beach bartenders because that may be the best job known to man. 

I have worked in the legal field before going to law school, I've worked in a DA's office in a major city, and the people in that office seem to be some of the most dedicated and satisified employees I've seen in any profession.  I went into that internship not knowing what I want and workign there made me want to become a prosecutor.  I have no interest in BIGlaw what so ever and I'm glad I don't. What you sacrifice at a DA's office I'm assuming you receive back in satisfaction and a life outside of work.  These people have a softball team, go to the karoke bar after work and do something they enjoy (presenting cases in court) for less hours (most DA's i've met work Mon-Fri 9-6 or 7) Sometime less depending on trials.  But the kick in the ass if that you only start at 46,000 a year, and it's a difficult job to get in to.  Just my two cents.  I"m an incoming 1L and I know a good amount of happy laywers.  So don't let the scaremongers on this site disuade you.  If you went to law school for the right reason (you want to practice Law) then you'll be okay.  If not, you will have a harder time, but then again law school is a glorified trade school, so you wouldn't go and join a union to become a carpenter if the thoughts of swinging a hammer all day pissed you off. 

20
Current Law Students / Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« on: June 07, 2006, 11:48:10 AM »
Don't go to T4s, I mean to any T4, not just the ones listed here! Don't be stupid!

so you've graduated law school, or have gone to a T4, or have some knowledge of t4 that you didn't garner off ego intesifying board.  Interesting point, I really enjoy the fact that you set an argument then use clear examples and ratonale to defend said argue\ment.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7