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 - LoverOfWomen
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9  11 12 13 14 15 ... 17
« on: March 31, 2006, 06:30:36 AM »
But yes, we should focus on economic and foreign issues while keeping our commitment to civil rights and liberties (including abortion AND GUNS(gun ownership is a civil liberty))as part of our platform, however as part of the platform that will not be thrusted in front of people. We should continue our stance on Bush nominations while allowing people like Casey to address our conventions.
Sounds like quite a chore:
« on: March 31, 2006, 06:24:29 AM »
i think you're right on, for the most part. there are firms focused on t3, t6, t10, and also t14. this is also the case for firms that regularly draw from tier 2, who certainly divide that tier in to different groups.
however, i don't believe it's true that, within tier 1, schools ranked 15-50 are all treated the same. for example, there's a big difference in firms recruiting from something like texas (15) and american (high 40s). again, as much as ratings sucks, i think tier 1 is a lot like tier 2, in that it's more broken down- firms look first at t14 (and further break this down, as discussed), then at t20/25, then somewhere around t35, and then the rest of tier 1 (the t35 thing is a rough estimate, but it tends to represent the schools within tier 1 that stay within tier 1, while the rest of tier 1 can be pretty mobile, often slipping out of the tier altogether).
of course, as you've mentioned, it depends on the firm. some won't touch students outside of YHS. others won't go outside the t14. however, i think many firms still draw a big difference between, say, texas or UCLA and wisconsin, and also between wisconsin and somewhere like alabama.
Yeah, I think this is a pretty accurate breakdown of Tier 1. It's probably more helpful to think of progressive "clusters" rather than a strict hierarchy. In general, I think a useful guide would be:
1) Trinity (YHS)
2) Elite (t6)
3) Superior (t14)
4) National (15-34)
5) Strong Regional (35-60)
6) Regional (60-90)
7) Borderline (90-100)
Hard to say, though. Some schools move between categories, so I think the best way to use the rankings is in mapping out, at the very least, five-year trends.
« on: March 31, 2006, 01:06:44 AM »
Honestly most firms don't care about the specific number, just the tier with the exception of top 14.
click on the link: this letter has been endorsed by the following deans.
this is a real nit-picky thing, but do you really think that all tier 1 schools outside of the t14 are seen as exactly the same? while drawing strict lines might be stupid, i think there are big differences between the t14, t20, t30, the rest of tier 1, etc. in fact, i think there's a big difference between schools that are at the top of tier 2 (which can even jump in to tier 1), those in the middle of tier 2, and those that barely make it.
ratings suck. there's no doubt about it. however, employers watch these things steadily (like law school admissions, they too are concerned with prestige), and know what school is where.
Well it depends on the firm. For some biglaw companies, there are four divisions: t3 (YHS), t6 (CCN), t14, and then the rest. Others make the split alluded to here (t14, tier 1, tier 2, the rest). It really depends on what sector the firm is used to dealing with. A firm that usually takes in YHS will more carefully parse amongst those three and less so with other categories. On the other hand, firms that generally draw from T2 schools will make the distinctions you name among upper, middle, and lower T2.
« on: March 31, 2006, 12:27:28 AM »
Thanks for your feedback on this!
Not at all.
« on: March 30, 2006, 11:03:06 PM »
Back on topic, I went and played some paddle ball.
« on: March 30, 2006, 10:47:07 PM »
I really want to do environmental or real estate law. Maybe even corporate or accounting law.
corporate as preferences? You really are quite the mercenary. Nah, I'm just teasing you.
« on: March 30, 2006, 10:45:38 PM »
166. (8.5 to your scale)
Oh, OK. I saw your conversion post, so this makes more sense.
« on: March 30, 2006, 10:44:14 PM »
I like the 120-180 scale better. That scale rules in all things.
I would say
S0, I would give her a 175
Fair enough, but thanks for providing a conversion scale.
« on: March 30, 2006, 10:14:54 PM »
You and I both know that you IM'd me twice, chickensh*t. It's logged on my computer. The name was loverofwomen007. One contained a link back to this thread. But I suppose it looks better if you don't reverse your story.
If I was low-life enough to make this up, Don't you think I would have claimed you said more in your messages?
Creepy psycho... and now add "outright liar" to the list.
I didn't accuse you of lying, although I won't rule out the possibility that this IM bit is a flame. At the very least, though, you're mistaken. I repeat, I never IMed you and loverofwomen007 isn't my screen name. It's very possible someone else IMed you using a moniker similar to my own.
I think philbusters has some good advice:
You guys are sweating this way too much.
« on: March 30, 2006, 10:09:27 PM »
I would look at Syracuse's bar passage numbers...seem significantly higher than NYLS. Still, the decline from T2 to T3 is pretty drastic and may hurt the school in the long-run if this doesn't turn out to be a simple blip on the radar.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9  11 12 13 14 15 ... 17