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 - kenpostudent
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 31
« on: October 06, 2010, 12:07:39 PM »
However, getting a job is easier from a pedigreed school and I do think top schools attract better faculty and students. You said you hate cold weather and did not attend Stanford, because of the cost. If you got a 180 on the LSAT and had a realistic shot I imagine your tune might have changed. I chose GGU for the scholarship money and would not change for anybody. "Sure" if Stanford came calling I would be there. Stanford is a better school than GGU. (PERIOD). (EXCLAMATION POINT).
You're a pretentious bastard if you somehow presume to know where I would have gone to law school had I had a certain LSAT score! How do you have any idea what I value? Maybe my ties to Las Vegas (10 years of personal and professional relationships) is worth more to me than a degree from Stanford, even if the cost was equal to that of Boyd. Furthermore, maybe I want to practice in Las Vegas. Therefore, attending Boyd would make far more sense than attending Stanford because Boyd gives me access to internships and part-time jobs during law school that Stanford would not. Get the F*ck off your high horse! You don't know me and you have no clue what I would do.
That said, I can't honestly say what I would have done had I been offered a full-ride to Stanford. It would have been a very tough decision because I love my girlfriend; I have valuable contacts in Las Vegas; I want to practice in Las Vegas, I hate CA; and, I would still incur more debt even with a full-ride to Stanford because of a higher cost of living in Palo Alto as compared to Las Vegas.
I don't think Boyd is a better school that Harvard, Stanford, Yale, any T14, ect. I, however, don't think any of those schools are necessarily better than Boyd. To argue that Stanford is necessarily better than Boyd is nothing more than an opinion. The conclusion depends on what criteria one values. From on objective perspective, all T14 schools do place better on a national level than Boyd. I have never argued otherwise. However, I will vigorously challenge the notion that a T14 places better than Boyd in Nevada. I do not believe they do. Given a choice between a Harvard grad and a Boyd grad (assuming equal applicants in every way except for their alma mater), I don't think most Nevada firms would hire the T14 grad simply because of where they went to school. The reverse is not true. If I went to Manhattan to apply for a big firm job, I would have virtually no chance of getting a job, unless 1. I clerk for SCOTUS, 2. My dad owns the firm, or 3. I blow the hiring partner and he has the orgasm of his life. Because I don't suck c*ck, my dad does not own an NYC law firm, and I will never clerk for SCOTUS, I don't like my odds. Moreover, I don't see how Harvard, Yale, Stanford NECESSARILY produces better attorneys simply because they managed to get into Harvard. What you do in law school and how hard you work has great bearing on the skills you develop and the trajectory of your career. That is the sum total of my argument.
« on: October 05, 2010, 07:08:03 PM »
Lest you call him an outlier, Boyd has had at least a few graduates a year transfer to a T14 school for the last four years (mostly Georgetown, for some reason they like Boyd grads).
« on: October 05, 2010, 07:05:51 PM »
One last thing, I have no doubt some chose to go to schools outside the T14 and have great intellect. The school is not always indicative. In my LSAT prep course, I had 2 Princeton University graduates. I was outscored them both on every test but the 1st (they scored higher by a point) For the official test in June, I scored 8 points higher than one. The other I no longer talk to. And I went to a lowly state school (and a county college for that matter). I believe though, as they say, I am the exception that proves the rule. In general, Princeton students will most likely score better than one who has gone to community college. But sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise.
I'm not really sure to what degree one's LSAT score accurately predicts law school performance. Studies indicate a correlation between first-year grades and the LSAT score. I'm not convinced, but I believe that one's ability to perform well on any standarized test is probably indicative and predicitive of bar passage. I've heard the arguments on both sides of the LSAT debate. I don't really have an opinion either way. Almost no one, however, believes that the LSAT has any correlation to success as a lawyer (assuming one can score high enough to get into law school). Many good attorneys had average or low LSAT scores. I'm not sure if there is any empirical research on the difference in overall career success between someone who scores a 150 versus someone who scores a 180 after say 20 years after law school. I'm not even sure how you would measure that success: monetarily, status of a job, number of trial wins, ect. I would imagine that those who score lower on the LSAT have fewer options in the first 5-10 years of their careers because of the law schools they attend. However, some people score low on the LSAT, go to a low-ranked school, kick ass in their first year, and transfer to a top school in their second year. Any such research would have to capture those people. We had a Boyd student do just that last year. He graduated #1 in the class, had an average LSAT score, then transferred to Stanford. He is now on their Law Journal.
« on: October 05, 2010, 06:47:31 PM »
I agree that the top 25% at Harvard would probably be in the top 10% or better in many lower rated schools. I don't necessarily believe that the top student at Boyd would not be in the top 10% of his class had he/she transferred to Harvard. That may or may not happen, but I wouldn't even attempt to offer a guess on that. I believe that the skillset necessary to be in the top 10% at any law school is pretty similar (assuming ABA accreditation). So, the #1 student at Boyd may still be in the top 10% elsewhere, or woudl at least have a fair chance of achieving similar results.
« on: October 05, 2010, 06:37:59 PM »
I'll use a fighting analogy because I am a fighter. NO ONE thought Matt Sera could beat GSP, who has the much better fighting pedigree. GSP got KTFO. NO ONE gave Buster Douglas a chance against Mike Tyson. Tyson got KTFO. NO ONE gave Ali a chance against Foreman. Foreman got KTFO. Oh, I also love football. The 1972 Dolphins had not one superstar on their defense. Yet, they are still the only team with a truly perfect season. Oh, and the Minnesota Vikings that same year had one of the best defensive front-lines in history. They never one even on Super Bowl with the Purple Peaple Eaters. Pedigree doesn't always matter. Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th Round. Ryan Lief, Todd Marinovich, Tim Couch, Jamarcus Russell, Andre Ware, Tim Tebow, Matt Leinart, and Alex Smith were all first round picks. Every last one of them are busters... not fit to play in the NFL.... all with decent or even great pedigrees.
I could go on and on. But I'll quit. Pedigree can be deceiving.
I attacked your assertion that a Boyd graduate "ends up equal to or stronger than the average Harvard grad at graduation because of a more rigourous legal writing program." I also criticized your reliance on USNWR "specialty rankings." You give me an anecdotal listing of extreme outliers to prove that you do not believe that the "ink on your degree defines you."
There are so many things wrong with this. You'll have to step up your reading comprehension skills in order to compete with those Harvard grads. Care to try again?
Sure, why not? My argument is that pedigree is not the best indication of future performance, even when those who assess a candidates potential are experts or should be experts in doing so.
I did not say that "all Boyd grads are better legal writers than all Harvard grads." Nor did I say that "most" or even that "many Boyd grads are better legal writers than all or most Harvard grads." That is your failure in reading comprehension, Mr. Federal Clerk. Maybe reading all those complicated federal cases has fried your brain or fatigued your eyes. I did say that it is possible that a Boyd grad could be as good or better of a legal writer than a Harvard grad if Boyd's legal writing curriculum is more rigorous than Harvard's. I express an opinion that Boyd's legal writing curriculum is more demanding because increased requirements for graduation, although I offer no opinion on the quality of their program. So, if Harvard's program is equal in quality to Boyd's program, but we have more required classes and a writing requirement, it is POSSIBLE that the Harvard grad may have started law school as a better writer than the Boyd grad but end up at the same level upon graduation. I didn't even say that this is true in every case because I've seen terrible writers at Boyd. I only argue possibility. Although, I do argue that I will bet that I can compete with many Harvard writers. I bet many of my classmates can, as well.
Our legal writing writing courses are not just about grammar, as you have stated, or even mechanics. We learn how to write succinctly, accurately, objectively and persuasively. One focus is how to incorporate metaphor and narrative into legal writing into a context that paints a picture for a judge, using case law or policy (where policy is appropriate - issues of first impression or when seeking a ruling in derogation of common law or conflicting precedent). We also have specialized writing courses in Litigation (taking a case alll the way from complaint to motion for summary judgment), judicial writing (writing several types of opinions on cased argued before the 9th Circuit prior to opinion, we then compare our opinions to the court's opinion when published), Legislative and statutory interpretation, or transactional legal drafting. Every student must take one of those specialized writing courses to graduate (in addition to legal writing 1 & 2 and the scholarly writing requirement). The scholarly requirement must be either published or publishable or the student does not graduate... period. Even if you get a 4.0, you cannot graduate from Boyd until a tenured professor attests to the publishable quality of the scholarly thesis. Students have not taken the Bar because a professor refused to sign off on that requirement.
So, I believe that many Boyd students may be better writers than some Harvard grads.
« on: October 05, 2010, 06:17:53 PM »
I'll assume that that are by far more hall of famers/all pros from the 1st round of the NFL draft than the 6th round. I am too lazy to search for evidence. Let me know if you find that I am wrong.
Maybe, but many also went in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rounds. 1st round picks are often defined by a team's needs. In the NBA, your assertion would be more true. In the NFL, a team may need a defensive lineman more than a running back, so they choose the DL in the 1st round while their second round choice ends up being a Hall of Famer ten years later.
A better analogy is that NFL Hall of Famers come from a variety of colleges and conferences: some Division 1, others Division 1A. Some come from the Pac-10, others from the SEC, others from the Mountain West, others from the WAC (even the Weak A$$ Conference). I used my analogy only to say that the scouts' and coaches' assessment of even individual players (for whom they have video evidence and first-hand knowledge of) is often wrong. How much more are the assessments of Big Law partners of a prospective associate's potential as an attorney when based only what is on paper? Most hiring decisions are based upon personality, anyway. Your paper attributes get you to the interview. Yet, resumes or transcripts don't always tell the full story. I'm not suggesting that Big Law should start selecting people from a T4 with a 2.5 GPA. I am suggesting that their biases are not always accurate.
« on: October 05, 2010, 06:09:29 PM »
My friend went to a huge public high school with me and played basketball he had no pedigree prior to that. He was just really smart I also worked with a guy this summer who went to a public school in Vegas who also went to Stanford. I think the misconception that Harvard and Ivy League Grads are spoiled rich white kids is as unfounded as the people who say all these terrible things about lower ranked schools. The people I have met that go to Stanford and Berkley often did not come from money or anything they were either brilliant or worked their asses off. Of course there are some people that fit the rich, spoiled, white kid stereotype. However, generally speaking that is not the case at least from what I have seen from my friend from Stanford and his friends. They were all pretty well rounded people who just happened to get outstanding SAT/LSAT scores. Good for them.
I always hear people at my school saying I would do so much better than a Stanford Grad in an interview blah blah. All I want to say is probably not many Stanford and Berkley people are quite well rounded that is how they got their in the first place. There are also some very socially awkward people at my less than prestigious school. As Marcus said there are more 1st round picks that are hall of famers than 6th round picks. Tom Brady was a 6th round pick so it CAN and DOES happen, but you can't honestly tell me that if when you were applying that Harvard, Stanford, or Yale was going to let you in that you wouldn't have attended. Tom Brady would have rather been picked number 1 opposed to 224. He made the best of it and Jamarcuss Russel the number one pick did not. That kind of stuff does happen, but again if I was going to bet between a person from Boyd or Harvard having a more successful legal career I would bet on the Harvard Grad. If I was going to bet on two basketball players having a successful NBA career I would choose the guy that played at UNC over a guy that played for Virginia Union. There are players that are busts from UNC and Duke and Ben Wallace went to Virginia Union it happens, but again the odds are somewhat stacked against you.
Boyd is not Harvard. GGU is not Stanford. The list goes on and on. You can have a successful or awful legal career no matter what school you go to, but Harvard gives you a leg up in most circumstances. Of course there can be some exceptions where a Harvard Degree might actually hurt you, but 98% of the time it is going to help you.
I would not have attended Harvard or Yale. I hate cold weather. I would attend Stanford, but I would not pay for Stanford. So, if the choice were between a free education at Boyd and paying full price at Stanford, I would choose Boyd.
« on: October 05, 2010, 04:53:19 PM »
It is very possible that the average Boyd admit is weaker than the average Harvard grad upon admission, but ends up equal to or stronger than the average Harvard grad at graduation because of a more rigourous legal writing program.
This is hilarious. You can take all the legal writing courses you want, but there is simply no substitute for hard work, brainpower, and the ability to reason properly. Most HLS students have, or are capable of utilizing, all three. HLS doesn't have to put undue emphasis on legal writing because their students are expected to know basic grammatical rules and how to write in an organized manner prior to attending the school.
By the way, don't rely on specialty rankings. They're a joke and no one takes them seriously. When you graduate and take on a real case, you'll quickly learn that general knowledge of a particular field of law will rarely give you the "upper hand" on an opponent. Cases boil down to issues. Someone that has no general knowledge on a particular area of the law can skip all of the useless knowledge by narrowing down the issues and focusing only on those issues.
*Caveat - There are some areas of the law where the law is so complex (i.e., bankruptcy) that a general knowledge of the field is virtually required. "Gaming law", as well as a host of other USNWR "specialties", do not fall into that category.
I'm glad you find it funny. Because I have represented REAL clients, as a CPA, and worked with both Ivy League grads from both law school and business schools, I think I know what I'm talking about. Coming out of an Ivy League school doesn't make you great. Some of the WORST advice I've every seen given to a client came from a Harvard attorney working on Wall Street. He was a well-educated moron who didn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground. Of course, this is not indicative of all attorneys who graduate from Ivy League schools. However, I've worked with at least 30 different attorneys from a variety of different schools on a variety of different clients. In my experience, the best did not come from Ivy League or T14 schools.
I'll put my knowledge, experience, and background against any 2L or 3L anywhere on earth! I may not be stronger in every instance but there is no one who is hands down going to mop the floor with me. If you don't believe, I hope I see you in court someday.
I don't believe the ink on your degree defines you. I also don't believe that simply because someone chose to go to a particular school or even because they are smarter in certain respects, that they are better. That is very ignorant. Big used a basketball analogy. I'll use a fighting analogy because I am a fighter. NO ONE thought Matt Sera could beat GSP, who has the much better fighting pedigree. GSP got KTFO. NO ONE gave Buster Douglas a chance against Mike Tyson. Tyson got KTFO. NO ONE gave Ali a chance against Foreman. Foreman got KTFO. Oh, I also love football. The 1972 Dolphins had not one superstar on their defense. Yet, they are still the only team with a truly perfect season. Oh, and the Minnesota Vikings that same year had one of the best defensive front-lines in history. They never one even on Super Bowl with the Purple Peaple Eaters. Pedigree doesn't always matter. Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th Round. Ryan Lief, Todd Marinovich, Tim Couch, Jamarcus Russell, Andre Ware, Tim Tebow, Matt Leinart, and Alex Smith were all first round picks. Every last one of them are busters... not fit to play in the NFL.... all with decent or even great pedigrees.
I could go on and on. But I'll quit. Pedigree can be deceiving.
« on: October 05, 2010, 01:28:18 PM »
The subrankings come from law professors and the deans of law schools. So, they are based on reputations in the legal academic community.
I am sure sure Boyd is a great school. I think most schools require 3 writing classes I know mine does as well, but at this point in law school career I don't really know or care what other schools graduation requirements are. I care about my own and that is really it at this point.
Are you sure the sub-rankings are based on Deans and Professors? That would be some type of fact and it would better than how I thought they were ranking the schools. Even if that is the system how would the Dean of Gonzaga know how well Franklin Pierce's IP law program is. If employers wrote reports about how well student's from certain schools were performing and if they were getting raises or just still around then that would be some kind of fact. I don't know if these deans and law professors are involved in the rankings and if they are it is better than what I thought. However,I still think it is completely inefficient to publish these subrankings or rankings period.
The subrankings are based upon polls. I don't know the exact methodology. However, legal academia is a small community. So, maybe not every dean responds where they have no knowledge of a particular school's IP program. Maybe the IP rankings are done by polling only schools with IP programs. I don't know. However, I do know that most professors are familiar with other prominent professors in their field.
Back to my first point: are Harvard grads better than Boyd grads? Probably, but maybe not. I do believe the top-ranked schools are largely overrated. However, almost every law grad is largely worthless upon graduation in real, practical terms. So, Harvard grads or Standford grads are not rated on true value but on "potential" value to a firm. The firms hope that the Stanford or Harvard grad will one day be a good attorney, even though they are worthless upon an offer of employment (certainly not worth $160-$200K). Boyd grads are equally worthless, but are probably at least as good writers as the T14 grads... in my opinion.
« on: October 05, 2010, 01:19:38 PM »
As to your example on IP law at Santa Clara, I agree with you. Many of the subrankings are opinions, but they are the opinions of people in the field who should know the deal. You're acquaintance may get better education in IP law at Santa Clara, or she may not. A good education may or may not translate into jobs. However, let's say she has no education background whatsoever in engineering, but she takes every IP class the school offers, becomes a research assistant for a professor who is very prominent in the field, and gets a great recommendation from that professor, she may get a good job out of it. It's hard to say whether she will or won't be successful. Sometimes learning from an expert makes a big difference.
We have a professor here at Boyd that is one of the most prominent experts on Secured Transactions (actually 2 professors)... he was on the committee that re-wrote Article 9! He is mentioned in many of the major secured transactions texts. He is not the best teacher of the subject, though, at least in my opinion. He is very theoretical, but not necessarily practical. So, experts cut both ways. However, everyone who knows Article 9 well in legal academia knows his name (both professors, actually). So, taking his class may be helpful.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 31