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 - NYC2L
« on: April 13, 2008, 02:30:19 AM »
I'm really sorry about your situation. I have many friends in the exact same position. At this point, mass mailing to small and medium sized firms would be a good place to start. I believe they start hiring around this time (provided they hire at all considering the state of the market). In addition, I would specifically focus on firms and other legal employers that ask for a memo so that your writing can be on full display.
As a last resort, you have got to find some legal work to do this summer, even if unpaid and/or part-time because, assuming your school has 3L OCI, you could apply to firms again and that 2L job would probably carry a good deal of weight in an interview. That may require hitting the pavement or scanning want ads or even craigslist.
« on: April 13, 2008, 02:17:07 AM »
That is very *socratic* of you to answer my question with another question, but I'm game. In response to your more rhetoric hypo, you are correct I would select the T25 grad over the T3 grad, but more so because they performed equally well and T25 grad's school would have been more competitive in the sense that *on average* the caliber of students would have been better. At that point the LSAT would mean less because the people had demonstrated their abilities in law school. As you might expect, I would choose the T3 grad because of his or her stellar performance in law school and focus in just the area of law important to me at the moment.
However, that does not speak to whether or not the LSAT is indicative of success in the legal profession. All you have done is thrown in additional variables to confuse the issue. Clearly, law school performance is also a factor in legal success. I think we agree on that. It follows, then, that if LSAT performance correlates with law school success (it does) then by transitive property the LSAT also correlates with legal success. Unless you now don't buy the predictive value of law school.
Further, you did not answer my question because, I can only assume, you would select the person with the higher LSAT. And why not? If faced with a partially correlative indicator and an irrelevant one, only a blithering idiot would select eye color over LSAT. My point was not to put the LSAT on a pedestal, but merely to argue that a relationship exists between it and legal success. If you refuse to grant me that, you are just being stubborn.
« on: April 12, 2008, 10:40:30 PM »
Your personal analogy does not disapprove my assertion for two reasons. First, I stated that **on average** LSAT + GPA + work ethic + intelligence = good lawyer but noted that there are exceptions to this general rule. You may be an exception. Second, I only asserted that the LSAT is one of many factors that may indicate one's potential for success as a lawyer. Your post states that you had a high GPA and implies a strong work ethic and intelligence. Moreover, you note that you "didn't have the time to dedicate [to] the LSAT," suggesting that had you had sufficient time you likely would have excelled and mooted your own point. Finally, and please humor me on this, if you were charged with capital murder and had to choose representation based either on eye color or LSAT score, would you choose the blue-eyed lawyer of the green-eyed one or the 145 LSAT over 175?
I'm not bashing anyone's school. I'm merely pointing out that LSAT is a predictor of future success in the legal profession and that most people would feel more secure using it as an indicator than many other characteristics.
« on: April 12, 2008, 08:43:26 PM »
"If you go to a top tier school your probably pretty smart? Hmm, lets see, to me it seems that you are likely a better LSAT tester and I have yet to see anyone prove that the LSAT is a good predicter of how one will be as a lawyer."
Give me a break. Going to a top tier school reflects work ethic and intelligence--both of which *are* good predictors of one's future success as a lawyer. Would you say the combination of a high LSAT score, graduating magna cum from a top undergrad, working post graduate, etc., are indicators of the potential for success as an attorney? I would. And granted, there will be outliers--the brilliant student who coasted through undergrad, aced the LSAT and law school but cannot cope with the stress of the legal world; the hard working yet poor test taker who goes to a lower tier school but through sheer force of will rises to the top. Many other generic examples could be offered but, and here is the key, *on average*, LSAT + GPA + work ethic + intelligence = good lawyer. In that sense, LSAT is *a* good predictor of one's potential for success as a lawyer.
« on: April 10, 2008, 11:17:00 PM »
This may have been addressed by OkinawanLawyer in a previous post but I don't quite understand why you are going to law school. If you are a banker and will be working oversees and doing all these great things then why bother going to law school, especially Cooley? Why not pursue your career in finance? Get an MBA or something. Or, if you are merely interested in learning the law, why not get your law degree online? Then you could work in business and take law classes. I simply do not see what a law degree from Cooley is going to do for your career.
If you have addressed this previously, feel free to ignore this post.
« on: April 10, 2008, 02:50:33 AM »
« on: April 09, 2008, 07:04:53 PM »
Ave Maria is an invalid example because it is as much s***hole as New College of Law. Any school that struggles with accreditation--the most basic component of a law school--should be avoided like the plague. The fact that one is only accredited nationally while the other only locally merely indicates that they are both awful.
« on: April 08, 2008, 11:01:38 PM »
I would advise against it. I don't put it on my resume because many people have strong negative feelings toward the organization (usually ignorantly) and it is not worth my time to explain to everyone who sees my resume that "no, I am not an extremist right-wing republican, no, I don't hate women and people of color," etc. Unfortunately, disinformation about fed soc is pervasive in law schools and the legal community in general.
An alternative reason not to put it on your resume, is that it does not really add anything to your credentials. It merely makes a political statement. Generally, your resume should reflect what you have achieved and joining an organization is not really an achievement.
Finally, ACS probably would not receive the same response. One, because it is of a lower profile than fed soc and two, to state the obvious, liberal things are far more acceptable in law schools than supposedly conservative things (although fed soc is not necessarily conservative--once again, though, I hate explaining this to people).
Were you at the student convention by any chance?
« on: April 08, 2008, 05:48:18 PM »
There is a similar discussion going on at abovethelaw.com for all those who can't get enough of this one.
I think dewayne_wayne's last point is valid. In fact, I was thinking about this same thing last night. More law students = more affordable legal services. While I agree with this from an economic standpoint there is still the issue of the quality of legal services. If these attorneys are not competent (not saying that all T3 and T4 grads are not competent) then those people who need public legal services are not getting effective representation. In other words, they are f***ed.
On the other hand, if these attorneys were eliminated from the marketplace, then people who desperately need services of that sort would have absolutely no low-cost option. In other words, they will be doubly-f***ed.
As with most segments of our society, the poor get shafted. This is no different.
« on: April 08, 2008, 03:09:48 AM »
"I think a juris doctor at almost any law school is worth the investment if you work hard."
While I cannot agree with you on this point . . .
"I better get back to this beer I was drinking in celebration of Kansas winning the championship."
I completely agree and toast you on this one.
Seriously though, I'm not trying to be a jerk or insult your school or you for choosing to attend it. I'm merely a proponent of full-disclosure. Prospective law students should know what they are getting into before they decide to take on massive amounts of debt for what are generally dismal job opportunities. And *most* schools (not just T3 and T4) do not readily provide that information.
Finally, my "financial analysis" was not meant to be comprehensive and I recognize (obviously) that salaries increase. However, if you were to calculate out the return on investment using reasonable assumptions, you would find that it takes an awful long time to recoup that 100K investment and 3 additional years of school. That is not to say that the investment never pays-offs. It does for a select few students from T3 and T4 schools. My point is that students should be made aware that the odds are stacked against them.
I should note that I transferred. I did not do well on the LSAT.