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 - kenpostudent

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31
261
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Pepperdine job prospects?
« on: July 02, 2008, 02:32:41 PM »
I know of only one Pepperdine alum. He is a client who is now the CEO of a public company. He used to practice securities law in Detroit and NYC, though. I don't personally know anyone else.

One suggestion, you can always browse the websites of local law firms. Most firms, even small firms, will have attorney bios on their websites. You can kind of gauge from that the number of grads that make it to various types of firms in various practice areas.

I've seen quite a few Pepperdine grads on the attorney profiles pages of Las Vegas law firms. I don't know how they do in LA. Honestly, most of the big firms (100+ attorneys) that I have researched seem to only hire from the Top 14-20 schools. However, in LA and San Fran, I have seen some big firms with Loyola LA grads. In most cases, though, they graduated in the mid 80s or mid 90s. Almost all of the new associates in those markets at big firms are from the top schools. There were alot of USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Berkeley grads at those firms.

What kind of law are you interested in?

262
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« on: July 02, 2008, 01:00:50 PM »
Well, idealistic towards America, no. Idealistic in the the sense that Iran means us no harm, yes. If not idealisitic, certainly misguided.

I'm not trying to silence your voice. I still don't see how giving you your voice somehow translates into giving a thug like Ahemdinejad a forum to spout his venom.

Back to the original question... have you visited both schools? That may the be only way to differentiate between the two. I doubt job prospects would be worse for attending one or the other. Your debt load will be very similar (although, I think Columbia is slightly more expensive than NYU). I have been to both campuses, and they have very different personalities. I think your decision will come down to personal preference, as I doubt there is really a material difference between the two schools. If you have a specific practice area or interest, you might research the writings of the faculty of both schools to see if one is an expert in that particular area. You might be able to develop a mentor relationship that way.

263
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Cooley has a JINGLE
« on: July 02, 2008, 11:59:20 AM »
I can't speak for every firm, so, you may be right. This has not been the experience of any of my friends or colleagues. In what capacity have you seen first year associates serve in court? Were they leads in a jury trial or a bench trial? I could see some first year associates getting some court room experience in pro bono cases in firms that practice criminal defense.

The daughter of one of my professors in undergrad attended law school at UC Berkeley. She is in her third year at one of the largest firms in Las Vegas and is just starting to depose witnesses and get some minor client contact. Vegas is nothing like the NYC or LA markets. From what I have been told, this is the norm at larger firms. Does anyone know of people who have had different experiences?

264
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« on: July 02, 2008, 11:27:39 AM »
Don't worry, you live in your Pollyannish paradise of idealism while someone else makes the hard choices for you.

Again, I am curious as to what you've contributed to the American polity that makes you feel entitled to make judgments about others in the manner that you do.

------------------------------

To the OP: one of the major differences between CLS and NYU is that NYU is much more of a stand-alone entity while CLS is more integrated into its parent university.  The distinction just came to mind so I thought I would throw it out in case it was relevant to your decision.

Rhymnoceros: getting started a little early, are we?

I reserve the right to tell you that your are an idiot if you publish a ridiculous view. However, I give you the same courtesy to similarly judge any view of mine that you think is foolish or unfounded.

As for my contribution to American policy, how is that relevant? I served in Bosnia. I was a low level enlisted man. I could influence no policies, only carry them out. I don't need to be a policy guru at a Washington think tank to recognize a threat when it is presented.

265
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« on: July 02, 2008, 11:23:51 AM »
Nevermind whether they are a good government or  bad government, they are fairly legitimate and we can't really fight their crimes by trying to subvert them. When we toss out the values we purport to defend, we lose all weight in the fight. It no longer matters who wins.

HOWEVER, I feel that the negative effects America has had on other countries (i.e. remembering all those times we made the WRONG policy decision and supported a right-wing dictator fond of torture.. there are, oh, at least a dozen of those we propped up in south america? no illegal drug trade excuses that, and the drug trade wasnt the reason most of those happened. it was outright distrust of socialism. these were democratically elected and they werent on any worse path than the right was, we replaced 'bad' with WORSE, for sure) and the lack of understanding we have about how other countries view us have put us in a bad position to really think seriously about what we are doing. The arguments are rubbed over with talk of patriotism or lack of patriotism, as if all americans who question certain actions are unpatriotic.
So it is important for big, bad decisions to get made, and all of our society should be focused on it. But right now I feel appropriate with the things I choose to talk about and focus upon because there are already 99 voices calling for strong action, and I want to be a part of society that, even if we ultimately do decide to take action, recalls all of the big bad stuff about the real world, and the fact that we are NOT always right, and that the strongest and baddest-ass looking action isnt necessarily always the best one.
Also, I think you wildly overestimate how much other countries would want to subvert us- the leaders of Iran have little interest in planting us all over with nuclear weapons, because they know we could blow their entire country away at the same time. That's the tense stalemate that everybody having nuclear weapons causes.

America has been involved in her fair share of Machivellian schemes when meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. We have been wrong on more than one occasion. Maybe we have even engendered much of the hatred directed our way. However, this is a matter of survival. Do you really believe that Iran would not disseminate nukes to terrorists? If the did so under the radar, who would we retaliate against? How does Mutually Assurred Destruction apply in this case? I assert that it does not. Radical Islamofacsists have little stake in anything but their attempts at acquiring 72 virgins in the afterlife. I doubt they can be reasoned with. Iran is full of many moderates, but their government has been hijacked by the most radical of radicals. Now they pose a clear and present threat to us. The failure to acknowledge and respond to that threat is either a act of monumental cowardice or abject stupidity.

I understand your arguments. America has been on the wrong side of things in the past. We are not in this instance.

266
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« on: July 02, 2008, 11:15:30 AM »
Nevermind whether they are a good government or  bad government, they are fairly legitimate and we can't really fight their crimes by trying to subvert them. When we toss out the values we purport to defend, we lose all weight in the fight. It no longer matters who wins.

HOWEVER, I feel that the negative effects America has had on other countries (i.e. remembering all those times we made the WRONG policy decision and supported a right-wing dictator fond of torture.. there are, oh, at least a dozen of those we propped up in south america? no illegal drug trade excuses that, and the drug trade wasnt the reason most of those happened. it was outright distrust of socialism. these were democratically elected and they werent on any worse path than the right was, we replaced 'bad' with WORSE, for sure) and the lack of understanding we have about how other countries view us have put us in a bad position to really think seriously about what we are doing. The arguments are rubbed over with talk of patriotism or lack of patriotism, as if all americans who question certain actions are unpatriotic.
So it is important for big, bad decisions to get made, and all of our society should be focused on it. But right now I feel appropriate with the things I choose to talk about and focus upon because there are already 99 voices calling for strong action, and I want to be a part of society that, even if we ultimately do decide to take action, recalls all of the big bad stuff about the real world, and the fact that we are NOT always right, and that the strongest and baddest-ass looking action isnt necessarily always the best one.
Also, I think you wildly overestimate how much other countries would want to subvert us- the leaders of Iran have little interest in planting us all over with nuclear weapons, because they know we could blow their entire country away at the same time. That's the tense stalemate that everybody having nuclear weapons causes.

America has done many things that I don't support or condone. Some seemed like good ideas at the time, others were blatant interference in the affairs of sovereign nations. Regardless, this is not a matter of international relations so much as it is of survival. Do you really believe that Iran wouldn't disseminate weapons to terrorist groups? That is the most naive view I have ever heard.

Mutually Assured Destructions worked with the Soviets and the Chinese because both new we could vaporize their countries. If Iran were to give Hezbollah and nuke under the radar, who can we retaliate against? MAD does not apply in this situation. I'm not convinced that an American president would execute a nuclear strike against a country without solid proof that they were connected with an attack on the United States or an ally. Israel, on the otherhand, would be certain to respond to an attack on their soil. I don't think we could stop them from nuking all of their enemies if they were attacked.

267
With a plea, there is a tangible end...someone goes to jail who probably deserves it. That is an important distinction in my mind. Oftentimes, the state has far more authority to enforce a criminal verdict than a civil verdict (look at OJ Simpson, the Goldmans will never see a dime from him). It is possible for individuals and companies to default on civil judgements by transferring or hiding their assets. Sometimes, companies can declare bankruptcy, while their owners open up a new business under a different name (although, that is hardly the case with reputable comapanies).

268
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« on: July 02, 2008, 01:15:33 AM »
Nevermind whether they are a good government or  bad government, they are fairly legitimate and we can't really fight their crimes by trying to subvert them. When we toss out the values we purport to defend, we lose all weight in the fight. It no longer matters who wins.

I wonder if you will still hold that view if an Iranian nuclear suitcase detonates in a US city. In my mind, it matters a great deal who wins. I don't doubt for a second that they would disseminate nuclear weapons to terrorist groups once they get their first operational bomb. That's the ultimate doomsday scenario. Not only could a terrorist group hold our country virtually hostage with just the threat of a nuclear attack, they could vaporize city after city, leaving us no one to retaliate against. We will be screwed. If you want to believe that Iran is a good regime that poses no threat to us, feel free to bury your head in the sand. When you decide to pull it out, it may glow in the dark.

Take comfort, though. The Israelis have balls even if we don't. They will blow them back to the stone age for us, and we'll back them in the aftermath. Much of the world hates Israel already, so what have they got to lose? Don't worry, you live in your Pollyannish paradise of idealism while someone else makes the hard choices for you.

269
I know a lot of elderly folks (I live in NY amongst retired Wall St and other businessmen) that believe that our current state feels much like it did in the 20s prior to the great depression.  Well Im glad, truly, that someone out there is still optomistic about things. 

Do you really believe that we are headed for another Great Depression? C'mon, we haven't even had one quarter of negative economic growth yet. The GD was a direct result of the abject stupidity of government. Not to say it can't happen again, but I think we have learned our lesson this time.

The GD was the result of three successive recessions: the first was caused by the stock market crash; the second was the result of the massive inflation in food prices caused by the "Dust Bowl" drought in the plains states in the early 30s; the third was the result of a sudden drop in export revenue because of the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. It took two incredibly stupid moves by government to cause this: first, failing to subsidize farmers affected by the Dust Bowl; second, the passage of the largest tariff in American history.

Government might do this or something equally stupid again, but I think it is rather unlikely. Business and government are too intertwined for such a colossal error to get by us this time.

270
General Off-Topic Board / Re: this just terrifies me
« on: July 01, 2008, 04:01:45 PM »

I don't think every miserable attorney will end up this way, but it certainly argues that law school applicants should make INFORMED decisions about debt and career prospects instead of automatically going to the highest ranked school and treating student loans like monopoly money.

I agree... racking up large sums of debt is a huge gamble. I don't think having a top law school on your resume gurantees you of anything, even if it increases your chances of success. Anything over $100k of debt just seems outlandish to me. The payments on that kind of debt could run $1,500 per month or more! That's a mortgage in some markets.

I wish more law schools would offer affordable part-time programs where students can work to pay tuition and living expenses. The law school curriculum could be shortened to two years instead of three, as well. Law is simply not rocket science. A masters' program in accounting is 2 years, tops. I guarantee you that advanced accounting is far more difficult than any concepts in law. If you don't believe me, try calculating derivative liabilities. How come accountants can learn a far more difficult profession in preparation for the cpa exam in a year and a half to two years? Advanced finance classes are even more difficult than law. An MBA typically does not require more than two years, even with a specialization in finance. 

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31