Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - cerealkiller

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8
31
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« on: April 23, 2012, 08:39:30 PM »
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

why not?

You're kidding, right?

Never is a really long time though, isn't it? Well, I suppose if brick and mortar schools fall to the wayside and Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and handful of outliers begin teaching law exclusively online, it's possible.

32
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« on: April 23, 2012, 08:31:17 PM »
Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

33
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« on: April 23, 2012, 06:30:23 PM »
Based on your referred link, out of 102 people who responded, 90 wanted to become attorneys, 70 passed the bar, and 55 went on to practice law.  So, there you have you’re 15, at least.

Passing the bar is not success.  The bar tests basic legal competence. 

Practicing law is not success.  Many solo attorneys are out there losing their ass and have to take on second jobs just to make ends meet.

P.S. - It's "your", not "you're".

And you know this is true for those folks HOW???  Passing the bar, if that's all you wanted to do, would be a success.  Doing a solo practice, again if that's what you wanted to do, would be a success.  Unless you have something else to show that supports your contention, than you're just another negative Nancy who THINKS they know best by demeaning anyone who pursues any other means than what he (YOU) thinks people should.  We get your point - do it my way or you're a failure in my book.  NOT!!!  And, your vs you're - so what - point was made; debate the issue, not the semantics.


I will concede, however, that for those who shared your idea of success when setting out to study law at Taft, I think all would agree that they're abject failures, as I doubt any of them have risen to the seats of power of which you covet.

Another, lame, subjective, unsupported statement geared toward undermining another's unacceptable path of pursues.

Learn how to read, Opie58. I think you'll find the skill of some use in the legal profession.

34
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« on: April 23, 2012, 04:05:47 PM »
I appreciate the homework assignment, but I'll have to decline the invitation.

You're right, to an extent. But, again, you're operating under a very narrow view of what success is, or should be. Not everyone wants to work at a v100 firm, or be a federal judge, diplomat, or CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500.

It seems that your definition of success is largely equated with money, prestige, or a combination of both. Of course, everyone needs to make money, but the making of it isn't everyone's chief concern. Now granted, money is the chief concern of most want-to-be attorneys. Most 1Ls have dollar signs in their eyes, even though many will never see more than $80,000-$90,000 a year at the height of their legal careers--if they're lucky enough to earn that much.

But some folks pursue legal careers because they truly want to make a difference in their community, albeit small and hugely unprofitable. To say that, for instance, someone who devotes an entire legal career to helping want-to-be parents navigate the confusing and complex landscape of child adoption, but fails to ascend into the upper-middle class, is unsuccessful is incredibly shortsighted. Lawyering was once viewed as a helping profession, first and foremost. To my mind, a lawyer who still understands and lives by this notion is a success, irrespective of the number of digits in her bank account.

That's fine an dandy, but look at the stats again.  About 90% want to become attorneys.  About 25% actually practice in the legal field.  Most of these folks won't even be able to pursue a legal career.  I suppose there's always room for another successful barrista!

Well, unless we question those fortunate few about their legal careers, we will never know if they are successful or not. As we've illustrated, success is subjective. I will concede, however, that for those who shared your idea of success when setting out to study law at Taft, I think all would agree that they're abject failures, as I doubt any of them have risen to the seats of power of which you covet.

35
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« on: April 23, 2012, 03:32:40 PM »
I appreciate the homework assignment, but I'll have to decline the invitation.

You're right, to an extent. But, again, you're operating under a very narrow view of what success is, or should be. Not everyone wants to work at a v100 firm, or be a federal judge, diplomat, or CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500.

It seems that your definition of success is largely equated with money, prestige, or a combination of both. Of course, everyone needs to make money, but the making of it isn't everyone's chief concern. Now granted, money is the chief concern of most want-to-be attorneys. Most 1Ls have dollar signs in their eyes, even though many will never see more than $80,000-$90,000 a year at the height of their legal careers--if they're lucky enough to earn that much.

But some folks pursue legal careers because they truly want to make a difference in their community, albeit small and hugely unprofitable. To say that, for instance, someone who devotes an entire legal career to helping want-to-be parents navigate the confusing and complex landscape of child adoption, but fails to ascend into the upper-middle class, is unsuccessful is incredibly shortsighted. Lawyering was once viewed as a helping profession, first and foremost. To my mind, a lawyer who still understands and lives by this notion is a success, irrespective of the number of digits in her bank account.

36
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« on: April 23, 2012, 02:04:42 PM »
And therein lies the rub--not everyone's definition of success is the same. So to conclude that anyone who doesn't crack the second tier, should forget about practicing law is just plain stupid. There are many great lawyers and judges who attended law schools that ranked outside of the top 50. Yes, the likelihood of success increases as one moves higher toward the top 14.  But success in many ways is a personal decision that's unaffected by outside circumstances.

37
I would look at the school's political inclinations to which you plan to apply and adjust your resume accordingly. For instance, if you apply to Regent University, you might want to include it. It might not help your prospects, but you can rest assured that it won't hurt them either. But if you apply to UC-Berkeley, for example, you might want to exclude from your application package because there's just no way of knowing how your political ideology will be viewed by the admission council.

38
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Whittier vs. Cal Western
« on: April 13, 2012, 08:44:47 PM »
Where do you plan on practicing? If you plan to practice in San Diego County or Orange County, I would suggest you attend the local school in that specific market. Regional schools tend to offer decent employment possibilities locally. Plus, if you attend a school in the market where you intend to practice, it allows you three years to get to know the legal community, and, more importantly, you can make yourself known to the legal community, i.e., through internships and externships, legal-related community service, etc.

If you plan of practicing elsewhere then I don't think it really matters which school you attend. So starting from that point, I would compare the tuition rates, potential scholarships, and, perhaps, any special program or legal specialization that you're interested in that is offered at one school but not the other.

39
You called him an asswipe for politely correcting a mistake that made you sound like a complete fool?

Officers have an application process that does not include any kind of generalized test like the ASVAB, dumbass.  The thinking is, of course, the officer candidate went to college and picked a specialization there and can pick an MOS on their own.

OP, it is very dangerous to solely count on getting a JAG job.  I know all Coast Guard attorneys are reserve.  All the other branches have active and reserve attorneys, but JAG jobs are very competitive for a variety of reasons.  One of which is the insane experience you can get right out of the gate.  Bad for your clients, but soooo good for an aspiring baby attorney desperate to learn how to practice law.

As far a phys. fitness, the only branch where its a big deal is the Marines.  All the other branches, including the Coasties, have different standards for their non combat positions, because well JAG is non combat.  You'll go to a direct commission school for about 8 weeks(ish) and I think it can be done part time, but not sure.  Except the Marines, where you'll have to go to OCS, then Basic and then JAG because the Marines like everyone to be combat ready/trained.

If I were you, I'd research now, but wait until you start law school then try to use the alum network to track down a JAG lawyer school alum.  S/he can give info on the process.  Never completely trust the OSOs or any gov reps, they have an agenda. Do trust the JAG lawyer alum you can find, that person will likely not have an agenda and can help you.  Good luck.

He is claiming the ASVAB is an aptitude test in the general meaning of the word and not a requirment.

To correct one point of error, I never claimed that the ASVAB test isn't a requirement for enlisted personnel. It is. But it is not a requirement for commissioned officers. Please don't twist my words out of proportion in hopes of shoring up your argument.

The OP was making an inquiry as to JAG's standards of acceptance. Your advising her to take the ASVAB was unhelpful. By pointing out that the ASVAB wasn't required for her purposes, I was simply attempting to redirect the discussion down a more fruitful path for the OP. 

40
What can I say? I really enjoy a nice bowl of cereal.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8