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 - brightline
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 19
« on: January 01, 2008, 04:42:47 PM »
First, I have to say I have very little knowledge about this topic.
However, here are some things you might want to think about:
Will your school let you "stay longer" or do they make everyone finish within a prescribed time frame?
If for some reason you are not able to practice law while you are in the military, are you okay with that? I do agree that it is probably going to be hard to find a legal job with a 12 year gap of not practicing law. I think the same would be true for any field one left for that length of time.
However, your military experience after law school might be marketable outside of the legal field...maybe you should look into what happens to those that retire from the military in the position you'd be in at that point who DO NOT have law degrees.
« on: January 01, 2008, 01:58:58 AM »
« on: December 28, 2007, 08:54:20 AM »
This is exactly why you should've done LEEWS. It would've helped you outline and organize your answer instead of getting "scrambled up".
I'd strongly recommend doing the program over winter break. I assume you are on winter break now, so get to it...
That sounds so easy, and I try to do that, but it seems like there are issues within other issues and I get all scrambled up, not knowing what to do.
« on: December 26, 2007, 11:46:35 PM »
Possible reasons for the differences:
1. The students at your new school are different
2. The curve is easier at your new school, especially in upper level classes
3. Maybe you're better at law exams now.
At any rate, I think filing a complaint is pointless b/c there is no way to prove any wrongdoing. Your old exams and your classmates' old exams at your MA school are likely in the trash now, and there is no way your profs are going to regrade them.
While I wouldn't be surprised if some schools try to prevent first semester top students from transferring, it is unlikely they would've spent much effort on trying to get a mediocre student to stay. If anything, the school's self interested motives would've led to them flunking you out because schools are afraid poor / mediocre students will fail the bar and hurt the school's passage rate.
Enjoy your new grades and forget about the complaint to the ABA.
« on: December 16, 2007, 04:10:21 PM »
Good idea, but I would hold off until grades are in for the semester and your transfer rec letters, transcripts, etc are out....you don't want to take any chances on your school pulling any funny business should you want to leave.
AND if they do agree to give you some money, it should have no academic strings attached. If it does, I definitely wouldn't take it.
Seems like saving $15K a year is an obvious choice. You might be able to talk to someone at your current school and see if they'll match or exceed the money.
« on: December 16, 2007, 04:07:13 PM »
I'd probably lean towards leaving, mainly to save money.
Top 1/3 doesn't mean a whole lot in my experience at the lower ranked schools. From what I know about recruiting at my old tier 2 and some other lower ranked schools, top 1/3 wouldn't get you past prescreening at most of the firms who did OCI, though the prosecutors' offices and some 45K a year personal injury / insurance defense sweatshops would give you an interview if they came to campus.
I don't know how much of a difference law review would make with that class standing at a lower ranked school, but my guess is not a whole lot...though it might yield some kind of long term benefit once you start working. Your best bet is to talk to some students who are ahead of you with similar academic profiles and see how things worked out for them with jobs and the like. Btw, you can still put that you were on law review at your old school on your resume, so employers will see it.
As for "firms putting you on hold till you have grades from the new school", I'm not sure where Bob got this idea from, though admittedly, my experience is mostly limited to people like me who transferred from a tier 2/3/4 to a T14. Here, even students who transferred some really horrible T4s got jobs working at large firms in big cities if they really wanted them, and were not "put on hold until they got some T14 grades" as far as I know.
Transferring is a hassle but not that big of deal. If you aren't cut out for a big bucks job (I don't think top 1/3 at your school or even the tier 2 will cut it) you might as well minimize your debt by moving to a cheaper school.
TOP 1/3 of my class low tier 4 (I would assume) to school in the 80's. Not really sure where I want to practice, mainly worried about being able to pay off my growing debt from student loans. The t2 school would save me about 15000 a year.
« on: December 13, 2007, 05:09:08 PM »
At my 1L school (I transferred), a tier 2, any student who earned less than a C was required to retake. The curve wasn't as bad as some low ranked schools but was still bad enough that about 1/3 of the 1ls each year ended up retaking at least one class.
« on: December 10, 2007, 01:23:30 PM »
Two other schools that used to have EA transfer policies were Denver and Case Western. Depending on a lot of personal factors, it may or may not be worth it to look at those schools for transferring.
In my personal opinion, any school not in the top 25 is not worth transferring to because you are unlikely to increase your job options in most cases. Major exceptions would be if you want to transfer to a state school back home to get a break on tuition, or if you have extenuating personal circumstances that necessitate moving to a certain location.
« on: December 10, 2007, 01:14:45 PM »
I have to say you're wrong.
Of the three students (including me) who transferred from my 1L tier 2 to a couple different T14s, LSAT was not a factor. It all came down to class rank at the 1L school. The student who made it to the higher ranked T14 had LSAT scores that averaged out to below 150. My LSAT was around the median for a typical tier 2 and that didn't keep me out . None of us were URMs or went to especially great undergrad schools either...we all went to mediocre to no-name state colleges. Additionally, there are several students at my new T14 from tier 3 and even tier 4 schools. A couple students even came from newly accredited law schools.
Again, to the OP, it all comes down class rank and the grades you get during your first year. The lower your school, the higher you need to rank in your class. It's that simple. Check the databases in the transferapps yahoo group and you'll see what I mean.
As for WUSTL, I wouldn't put too much stock in their transfer EA transfer process anymore. As of last year, hardly anyone got in EA, and the school requested second semester transcripts from everyone before making the bulk of their decisions. Search the transferapps group for info on this. Plenty of people got in EA to GULC though, judging by posts on the yahoogroup, and some who were deferred ended up getting in later.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transferapps/
I disagree. I think LSAT still matters, especially in the T14, but certainly less so then what school you transfer from and your class rank there.
« on: November 30, 2007, 01:41:13 PM »
With transactions in goods, the UCC applies. The way the UCC works is that it doesn't erase the common law of contracts completely, but where the UCC and the common law differ, the UCC ALWAYS OVERRIDES WHEN DEALING WITH TRANSACTIONS IN GOODS. If the UCC is silent on a issue, the common law would apply. Be careful with that though as you may think the UCC is silent when in fact there is a provision covers that issue....make sure you have looked thoroughly for a UCC provision before deciding to apply common law in any way on a transactions in goods hypo.
Natalie, it's obvious you are a first semester 1L and I don't think you are really qualified to give advice here. I think I see what point you're trying to make, but frankly your understanding isn't complete and what you've written here is going to be misleading to the OP, another 1st semester 1L. While there are a handful of cases that might use the UCC as persuasive authority in a common law contract or vice versa, they are the minority and not the norm.
When you have a fact pattern dealing with transactions in goods, I can promise you that 99% the the prof is looking for a UCC article 2 analysis unless the call of the questions after the fact pattern says otherwise. For transactions involving goods and services, you apply certain tests to decide which side the transaction comes out on, such as the predominant purpose test.
You can check with your prof on this. Also look at Blum's Contracts: Examples and Explanations to clear up any confusion you have as I found it very helpful.
As for the whole "weird final" / "policy question" thing, just imagine this hypo is two parties arguing over whose argument is better and how it should come out, not a case that has already been decided. That makes it a standard black letter law issue spotter hypo which is probably what your prof intended as you are at a tier 2 school and no tier 2 prof is going to make a final that is 100% policy. The only policy you should probably apply is standard black letter rationale - the simple purposes behind the black letter law...not "law and econ" theories or any of that other overly academic crap. Again, look at the Blum E & E for Contracts and work some problems, go through the chapters...you'll see what I mean quickly enough.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 19