Law School 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 - bigs5068

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 141
In my continuing quest to show the absurdity of rankings in everything I had to show this to depricate my own place a little. Here it is Golden Gate has the BEST LLM Program in California yep we beat out Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, everybody we have the best program according to the San Francisco Recorder a for-profit private magazine. This NEWS is front page news on our website and it just annoys me. I truly wish law schools across the board would give this sh** up and focus on their students. Instead of focusing time and energy having some magazine or newspaper say they are good. Everybody loses here and I truly wish law school deans would get together and say lets stop this. Golden Gate is just as guilty as the rest of them fighting and bragging about a petty ranking that USF or some other place will win next year. If Golden Gate spends enough time, energy, and money rubbing elbows with the right people maybe in 10 years we could become a tier 3 maybe tier 2 school. Just need to keep raising tuition and fighting with other schools for the attention of a for private magazine.

I wish all schools from Harvard to Cooley would just stop this absurdity and give law students a good education at a fair price. I wish more schools would be like REED COLLEGE who questioned U.S. News methodology and refused to participate. They were a top school, but they questioned the absurd methodology of U.S. News and concluded oh yea you guys are just a for-profit magazine holding a gun to our heads and we don't want to play your game. What did U.S. News in their typical bully way do in response? They severely downgraded them for refusing to play their stupid game. Nobody put U.S. News in Charge and nobody should or has to listen to them, but schools fall into this trap. I wish more colleges would take a stand like Reed did.  I don't know how long it will take higher education in all forms to learn this lesson and focus on developing professional students rather than worrying about what some for profit magazine thinks about them.

Law School Admissions / Re: 3.7 GPA and 146 LSAT
« on: October 30, 2011, 09:29:54 PM »
Yea you have nothing to lose, but 100 dollars and considering your going to make a 100,000 3 year commitment that 100 bucks is money well spent. As far as what clustered together means I would simply call the admissions office they know whats up and they are always very friendly since your a potential paying customer. Well good luck and hopefully everything works out.

Law School Admissions / Re: 3.7 GPA and 146 LSAT
« on: October 30, 2011, 10:59:24 AM »
I'm sure you will figure it out. In regards to your December/February dilemma I don't think you have anything to lose my taking them both times. Most schools don't average and simply take your highest score. If there is any school or schools you are specifically interested in verify that, but if the schools your interested in don't average you might as well take it as many times as you can. You have nothing to lose if you do worse and everything to gain if you improve.

Looking back I wish I would have realized that just to see where my full potential was. I took it once and thought that was it, but you really have nothing to lose by taking it as many times in a cycle as you can. With that said you can simply apply with your current numbers for the Fall and almost every application I filled out has a box that lets you say I am retaking. I don't think they will reject you until your new scores are in and you can have your application on file ready to go. This way you can start in Fall if your score doesn't improve dramatically. If you get a 160+ score on your next retake then hold off because with a 3.7 160+ you will be offered a lot of scholarship money at various schools. Putting of school for a year to save 60-80k on tuition is worth it, but if you get a another 146-150 type score you can still start in Fall. Again just my two cents and I'm sure people will have a different views on it.

Law School Admissions / Re: 3.7 GPA and 146 LSAT
« on: October 29, 2011, 11:52:42 AM »
Morten gives good advice and is right in a lot of ways, but I just wanted to expand on a few things. You are the only who can really know if you did everything you could do and  received a 146. If you studied your ass off and got a 146 then that might be the best you can do. Not everybody is capable of getting a 170 or 175 that is why receiving a score like that is in the 90th percentile. If everyone could get a 170+ score they would and numerous students wouldn't be dissatisfied with their LSAT courses. I know some people had enormous jumps, but when you take your diagnostic test odds are you can improve 10-15 points from that with proper study. It is possible to improve less or more though, but at the end of the day you are the only one that knows if you gave it your best shot.

If you showed up hungover on the day of the test then obviously retake. If you studied as hard you could then maybe stay where your at. As far as your GPA is concerned I don't know how much relevance it has on your LSAT score. My GPA measured by LSAC  a 3.5, but it was based on b.s. because I played basketball and got A's in Theory of Basketball, Varsity Conditioning, Weightlifting and so on resulting in 20+ units if free A's that inflated by GPA. Law school admissions and U.S. News don't care how you got your GPA they look solely at the number, which can be easily manipulated so I don't know much of an indicator GPA is towards your LSAT score.

If you had a 3.7 from Harvard in Nuclear Physics then you can probably can do better than a 146. If you got a highly inflated GPA like mine then I don't think you can use your GPA as any basis for measuring LSAT success. Realistically, even if you got a 3.7 in Nuclear Physics the LSAT is a specialized test that seems to test your ability to think fast at least in my opinion.

I will close with your statement of not wanting to wait another year for law school, I think you are right. I have known many many people that WANT to go to law school and took the LSAT canceled, rescheduled a retake, and so on. I knew one girl that messed with the LSAT for 3 years and  just could not be satisfied with her score. I don't know what happened to her, but she could have graduated and passed the bar in the three years she had spent trying to improve her LSAT score. She was putting her whole life on hold not wanting to commit to any job etc, because she was eventually going to law school as soon as she got the "RIGHT" score. For all I know she may still be studying and she could have graduated passed the bar and been practicing law for 2 years by now.  That is an extreme sample, but aside from putting that type of situation the  the longer you wait the likelier it is for life to get in the way.

I don't have any idea what your age etis, but another example of someone putting it off is a friend who wanted to go to law school took the LSAT got a decent score, but wanted to do better. He rescheduled, but then got offered a job making decent money as a salesman making 60-70k.  He has been doing that for three years now. He neither hates or  love his job, but I find it unlikely he will ever go to law school now. That might be better for him who knows, but maybe he will regret not going who knows point is life can get in the way. If law school is something you REALLY want to do, you should apply and retake so you have the option of starting law school next Fall. If you retake in December and pull a 170 then maybe hold off, because you will have a lot better options in the next cycle,  but if you get another 146-150 so on then why put off going to school for another year. If on the retakes you are receiving similar scores you will have just put off school for another year to be in the same spot.

Sorry for the long rant, but just wanted to give my two cents.

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Opinions Wanted
« on: October 27, 2011, 01:42:33 PM »
Check out it is the best site predictor and you can determine whether someone was a URM or had amazing softs as well as your likelihood of being waitlisted and so on. For 0L's with LSAT scores there is no better site than

With a 3.5 152

looks like you have a legit shot at South Texas

Slight chance at Texas Tech

Slight Slight Slight Chance at SMU

Almost no shot at Houston

Because Air Force Academy prepares you for a military career. Reed College does not and I'm sure Air Force focuses on training pilots and enginneers while Reed College is a liberal arts school. They have completely different focuses and goals so it is pretty hard to conclude one is any better or worse than the other.

Just to show these B.S. ranking systems don't apply to education alone lets not forget Businessweek along with many other "ranking" magazines ranked Enron on the top of their charts only months before their collapse and the ensuing chaos that transpired. What formulas did Businessweek use to come to their ranking? They try to be as vague about that as possible. They did write this apology type article to make themselves look better and I'm sure they took down any site indicating they ever put Enron on the top of their list. Read the article and you can see they were caught off guard by companies exaggerating their numbers! It is pretty impressive that Businessweek did not even consider that companies might fudge their stats when the magazine doesn't check them. That is a like professor saying what grade do you think you deserve. This sentence is direct from the article. ."This year it became clear that some members of the class have been benefiting from grade inflation. The collapse of Enron Corp. has shed a harsh light on the aggressive accounting that was pumping up some bottom lines." No way didn't see that one coming Businessweek. We thought companies would just send us their most conservative estimates and not dare mislead the public. Nobody not even the Federal Government ever thought companies would do something so outrageous. Oh actually no they did the Federal Government to that realization 70 years ago and they created an entire entity to regulate the SEC, but Businessweek in their infinite wisdom could not have forseen that.

 What is businessweek doing to fix something like this again? Direct from the article, "First, of course, we measure sales growth, earnings growth, and total shareholder return for each of the 500 companies. Because we want to capture the outfits that have staying power, we tally each of those categories for one- and three-year periods. To get a read on how well management is employing assets, we factor in net margins and return on equity, both for one year. If any data are unavailable, a company receives an "incomplete" in that category. Because it's easier for small companies to score bigger percentage gains, we weight the results by sales volume. This year, we increased the sales weighting somewhat. Add it all up and you get a ranking for each company, with the top 50 making up our honor roll."

A b.s. response that sounds good until you look in depth.  Is it gross sales growth, net sales growth, what about the debts they are incurring? You could go on and on with problems in there and they even acknowledge in the article some companies would look better using the formula than others.  I suppose you could measure dividends and so on, but maybe they are giving out dividends and barely able to make payroll to boost their ranking. No a company would never do something like that. It is just ridiculous I am pretty sure the SEC is not regulating businessweek and the ABA is certainly not regulating U.S. News. Nor should they it is a First Amendment Right to give your opinion, but it is up to people to realize hey these "rankings" put out by magazines don't be jack sh**.

These rankings in anything are ridiculous here is another doozy brought to my the site that ranks every single high school in America and yes parents take this site seriously, but look at the blatant anomalies it produces. Cleveland lost to Chatsworth and has a worse overall record. Cleveland and Chatsworth are are in the same league, same area, etc and yet Cleveland is the 1,964,ca%29/basketball-winter-09-10/schedule.htm best in the country while Chatsworth is nearly 20,00 schools worse coming in at 3,771.,ca%29/basketball-winter-09-10/schedule.htm

Again who is making these rankings some guys in Tahoe I believe. Yet they make rankings that go nationwide they made me a top 100 player without ever seeing me play and for the record I was should never have been anywhere near a top 100 player. I don't know why our country is so obsessed with rankings, but they are b.s. I could sit here and come up with an opinion about the best 100 restaurants, best 100 lamps, best 100 sports games, best 100 etc. I put in a glossy magazine put some numbers along with some buzz words and whoola people will thing Moses brought it from directly from the hill. It's absurd and I am just writing to point out it is all pretty much b.s., which I learned in high school when despite being ranked a top 100 player I routinely got my ass kicked. The ranking was created from b.s. and I didn't instantly get Lebron Muscles or Hops when they ranked me. I was still a big slow white guy.

You make some good points, but lawyers are harder to outsource than computer programmers or numerous other professions. If you need to appear in court outsourcing becomes impractical and basically impossible if they are not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction. Plumbers, electricians, and so on have competition and many of them don't like their jobs either. I strongly if you want to be a lawyer then go to law school, if you want to be a plumber go that route. Experiencing it first hadn is important and a good idea for law schools would be to require people to work in law firms for 100 hours or something so they can see what goes on. Or at least require you to complete some pre-requiste courses to show your serious about it. The point of people get a B.A. art in being unable to land a job then going to law school is a problem. Something could be done about it.

With that said I don't think law school is that much worse than anything else. I don't think architects get on the job training I find it very unlikely any architect learns how to design and complete a building while in school. I'm sure they draft a blue print go to a construction site etc, just as in law school you draft memos and attend court hearings, but that will not prepare you to handle a case from start to finish. Even medical school you don't graduate then conduct brain surgery you go through a grueling residency making 40-50k and usually the residency is not in a place you want to live. It is competitive and even when you complete your residency you aren't chief of surgery immediately.

The police academcy does not teach you everything you need to be a cop. I could go on and on and that reality is that no form of education can teach you how to do anything, because there is no SINGLE WAY to do anything. If you to doctors they will have their own opinions, because they have different ideas, if you go to a lawyer they will approach cases differently, an architect will design a building differently and so on. Is law school perfect? No it is not. Maybe you should have to learn to file a complaint etc, but my school offers a class like that and I have worked for a few judges and know how to do a few things. Certainly not an expert and I would have a different style than the next person.

Law school is not great, but it is not much different than most forms of education because school can only teach you so much. As for the cost law school really is about the same price as anything else.

Undergrad tuition is 1,280 per unit assume you make 14 units per semester that equals 17,920 full year 35,840

Law school tuition is 38,720 per year.

That is one example granted schools vary.

UCLA architecture degree costs 22,000 per year

UCLA law costs 44,000 per year that is more, but apparently architecture school lasts longer and you need to complete hours before becoming an architect. (Don't know how accurate this website is, but I don't imagine you get an architectural degree then people rush you do build a library or skyscraper. This says it takes 18 years to become a full licensed architect again how accurate is that is details it a little better.

I guess your tuition to get the architecture degree is cheaper, but still a long road at UCLA.

If you went to an in-state law school like University of Florida, Florida International University, etc you would pay less than the UCLA architect. Tuition at Florida Law School is 14k

You can find cheaper law schools, cheaper architecture, cheaper nursing schools etc, but more or less it is all very very expensive. I don't think law school is much worse off than other forms of higher education. Most of my friends are not in law school I had a lot of friends before I entered and they had many different majors and incurred a lot of educational debt some are doing well some are not. My pilot friends complain the most saying it is almost impossible log hours to fly, which you need to become a pilot. How accurate or inaccurate that is, but it their complaint. I had computer science friends who said it is so competitive, but some people found jobs others didn't. I feel like everyone in whatever profession they are in says how hard it is and does not look outside of their own situation.

I think this is the takeaway:
Higher education is expensive, a college, masters, or doctoral degree does not guarantee you a job, to get a job worth having you are going to compete with lots of people.  When you graduate in any field you are not going to be immediately ready to handle that profession. Someone is either going to mentor you or you will go out on your own and make mistakes, learn from them, and hopefully nothing goes horribly wrong.  This problems are not law school specific they apply pretty much universally to all career fields.

Again I plead if there is a degree that guarantees me a job at graduation, with a high salary, no competition, and is not illegal please tell me. Or write a book about it and make yourself some money. It is something many people want the answer to, but as far as I know there isn't an answer. Education is expensive, getting your career started in anything is difficult, if you start a career it is going to be competitive to keep your business afloat.

Current Law Students / Re: 1Ls: How are you doing after the first month+?
« on: October 20, 2011, 08:36:04 PM »
Yes that is exactly right play the game. Professors have their biases opinions etc and if you can throw in something they liked to talk about during the semester they probably will be happy if you write it. If you go to class everyday and really pay attention you can get a feel for how they think etc and play into their personality and you will get good grades. I have my answer published as the model in 7 classes and I think a lot of that had to do with using a few quotes the professors really liked. I knew the law of course, but it is an anonymous exam and if you put in writing that you were really listening you might get a brownie or point or two. Don't do that on the bar that is when you go by the barbri book, but don't go by BarBri in law school.

I don't know how many 1L students said I just listened to teh BarBri lecture and read this supplement that supplement and the other and although they can be helpful the law is not as black and white as it should be. Your taking the professors exam and every professor has a slightly different spin on the law and thinks different things are important so instead of trying to find an outside source that your professor is unaware of pay attention to what they are saying. In law school you are taking an exam on the professor not always the law. Obviously you need to the law to some extent, but reciting what Chemerinsky says in his MPRE lecture on your school's Professional Responsibility exam is not going to get you anywhere, but so many students try so hard to look for a shortcut when the key to success is quite simple. Read the pages your professor assigns, pay attention in class-no internet, and get a feel for how professor who is writing and grading your law school exam thinks.

I think the skill of learning to understand what the person in authority wants is key to being a lawyer. When you pass the bar you are going to go in front of judges and they will have their own style and often vastly different views on the law. I have worked for a few judges now and seen it first hand and I certainly saw it through reading cases. I mean Justice Thomas has his own way of viewing things I love him, but I remember in Con-Law reading the facts and already knowing he was going to the lone dissenter. If he was Superior Court Judge you were going in front of you would need to know how he thinks, because whether the judge is right on their black letter law when they put an order in it's over absent going through the time and effort of an appeal. You would be a lot better of knowing the judges style and thought process opposed to going in with what a textbook somewhere said.

Current Law Students / Re: 1Ls: How are you doing after the first month+?
« on: October 20, 2011, 02:54:41 PM »
Don't know if that is true of every single professor or even most professors. The reality is every single professor has a different style and the way you become familar with that style is by looking at their old exams. I outline dumped on one test and that was the worst grade I ever received in law school I have gotten A's in every class I didn't do that, but I am sure there are professors out there that would take an outline dump it all depends on the professor.  Don't get caught up in what BarBri or anything else says for a law school exam your taking the professor's exam that they wrote and they have the answer to. When they write it that want it a certain way and the prior model answers they selected show you what they want.

Current Law Students / Re: Why Law School is Still Worth It...
« on: October 17, 2011, 08:54:43 AM »
I didn't read every comment, but a lot said they found jobs and a lot said they didn't. This firm suing the schools I am interested to see how far that goes I'm guessing nowhere. I hope the judge in each case brings out each plaintiff's personal statement saying they can overcome challenges, blah blah. 

Education does not guarantee you a job in anything and I don't know why they are suing. It is going to be as successful as people suing the California Bar for being to hard they will lose. Yes that has happened numerous times and every time the same result in California. It's a standardized test that plenty of people have passed instead of litigating the issue why don't you study. Same principal here plenty of law graduates find jobs instead of litigating the issue why don't you focus on applying to jobs.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 141