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 - sluglaw

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
31
Law School Admissions / Re: Guess Where the Above Poster Will Go To School
« on: November 25, 2008, 10:46:16 AM »
Harvard!

Hmmmm...Virginia maybe? Must feel nice to have three great acceptances already!

That would make me SO happy, you have no idea! I'm going to be thrilled if i get an acceptance there, but i guess we'll see. You have great numbers, so I'm sure you'll have awesome choices really soon!

I'd say you have a terrific shot at Virginia. I'd be very surprised if you didn't get in with your numbers - so hopefully prepare to get SO happy...ha (hourumd lists your chances at 94.59%, but you probably already know that)



Accepted to Harvard, attending NYU.  You have a seriously kick ass app!  Can you teach me some Latin?

32
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: UCLA
« on: November 24, 2008, 03:14:02 PM »
The smart, ambitious people in LA are in technology, entertainment, finance and business.  In that sense it has similar demographics to New York, and a similar culture of excess that New York has.  Spoiled valley girls or spoiled long island bridge and tunnel crowds don't vary.  There's less entertainment and more finance (or at least there was in New York), and the girls are skinnier in New York, though more athletic in LA.  I think the advantage for that one goes to NY.  But I don't see the city comparing unfavorably in terms of people to NYC.  It's a similarly large, hard to generalize city.

However, I think it's less uniformly politically aware/ecoconscious than a Boston or an SF, and like every other city in the union, less wonky/brainy than DC.  But there are lots of niches in LA.  LA is probably only a conglomeration of niches...

I'd agree that LA is probably less politically aware/eco-conscious than SF, but I wouldn't agree with the assertion with regard to Boston. 

One thing that I like about LA (and don't appreciate as much until I go to other cities) is the relative smoke-free attitude of the area.  When I go to other cities, I realize how much people love smoking and it's just not the case in LA.  People look at you funny if you light up a cigarette.

Again, please feel free to ask questions about the city or UCLA specifically. 

I think the trade-off to being smoke free is the air quality of the city as a whole, which might be a contributing factor to people there not smoking as much (which all the hazardous gasses you breath on a daily basis, why add more with cigarettes?)  Heart disease, lung disease, asthma and other air-pollution related illnesses are more common in LA than other places.  Personally, going to LA can make me physically ill if the smog is particularly bad.

Beyond that, I agree that LA is a hard to classify city.  If you can put up with traffic and smog, then you will be able to find somewhere that you can fit in.

33
Law School Admissions / Re: How Important Are My LSAT Scores?
« on: November 24, 2008, 02:50:44 PM »
Dennis,

   Physics is inherently more difficult than most or every discipline.  If social sciences are so easy, can you give me any insight into the relationship between culture, language and thought?  Or the relationship between economics, culture, and individualism in Western Europe from 1400 to the present?  Have you read Jurgen Habermas, the theories of Gary Becker, Marilyn Strathern, or Adorno?  People like you do not need to comment on subject matter that is well-respected by individuals far more emminent than you will ever be (think Paul Wolfowitz, Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke).

Dude- you have some legitimate questions that you are asking but you come off as an absolute jerk.  First of all, this is a site populated by people obsessed with applying to and getting into the best law school possible.  So, it should be assumed that everyone knows what U Chicago is and how good of a rep it has (this is referencing your earlier claim that people think it is just some state school).  Second, you do know that political science is one of the most common undergrad major going to law school, right?  In all likelihood a good portion of people on this board have degrees in some sort of social science, and just as good a portion could give you a decent answer to your questions.  Most people here have probably read at least one of those people you mention (not all; there are 100s of big-name scholars you could have filled in for Habermas, Friedman, etc.; we all have different focuses and interests thus read different things).

Comparing physics to social sciences is apples to oranges.  They require different sets of knowledge and skills.  Some people could easily do both but choose one over the other by personal preferences.  Others find one a cakewalk and the other impossible.  Some people less blessed than you struggle every day to get by, but persevere and get it done anyways.  Do you feel the need to prove that you are just as good as those MIT physics students?

Let me break it down for you: you have a good record as a student.  You do your work on time, and get good grades.  That allowed you to go to a good undergrad school and a good grad school.  In terms of admission to law school, the GPA portion basically says, how good of a student is this applicant?  Do they get work done and show up to class?  Grad school is impressive, but it is ultimately showing off the same type of ability that you already demonstrated in undergrad.

The LSAT is important because it says, how well equipped is this applicant to be a good law student?  Do you have the analytical and logical skills necessary to cut it reading case studies and making arguments based on it?  No undergrad or grad work is equivalent to the work you will do in law school.  Law schools, I have heard, almost dislike students who take too many pre-law undergrad classes because the law school then has to 'un-teach' what the student has been taught previously (an approach to studying law that does not jive with law school methods).  Your arrogance in discussing your previous schooling underscores this point- you sound like you think you are already ready to practice law.

If you really have a disability, you can petition the LSAC for special testing circumstances.  If you have to take the test, study hard and maximize your score.  If you get a bad score, write an addendum explaining why you did so, and why you think you'll be a good law student anyways.  Don't, when writing your essay, constantly name drop and say how great you are.  Be humble and say how hungry you are to prove that test wrong, explain what difficulties you encountered with your disability, and how you have overcome it.

But ultimately, if you still get a 150, be prepared to not go to the school of your choosing.

Maybe, since you are so awesome and think you are better than every other law student out there, just go get your PhD in social sciences and teach the theory of the law somewhere.  You sound like you are cut out to be that overbearing obnoxious professor that everyone hates to take.

34
Law School Admissions / Re: low GPA, high lsat. Miami?
« on: November 24, 2008, 02:26:08 PM »
If Miami is your dream school, go for.  I think you might have a shot at some even higher ranked schools, though.  Having a 3.7 average for your last two years is great.  A 166 is a very solid above average score.  Your work experience is very unique, I think.  It shows that you are a mature person if you were able to be a successful journalist in 3 different foreign countries, and it also gives you a much more worldly perspective that not a lot of other applicants are going to have.  It's been 10 years since you got booted from school, and you have clearly matured significantly since then.  Miami should be a lock, and honestly if you are willing to spend the money (and want to go to a different school) then apply to a lot of schools in tier 1.  You never know where you're going to get in.

35
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: Questions about Golden Gate
« on: September 24, 2008, 04:29:39 PM »
from what i've heard the school itself academically is not that bad.  i knew someone who had a prof at boalt who used to teach at golden gate and said it was about the same.  the problem, of course, is where are you going to get hired after you graduate?  even if it was a very solid school, you have to keep in mind that one of the number one hirings draws is going to be regional law firms wherever you go.  the problem with golden gate is that it is surrounded by top-notch law schools- boalt, hasting, stanford and uc davis are all within 100 miles, not to mention that san francisco law firms are some of the top nation wide meaning that they hire from law schools all over the country.  basically, you have to be in the very top of your class to get any decent prospects to be hired, otherwise firms will take someone who graduated lower from one of the more prestigious law schools in the area.  to make it worse, it is not a very well known school outside of the bay (its not even well known IN the bay) so life is going to be very tough on you post-graduation.  i would recommend looking elsewhere.

as for the person who posted about people having trouble with the bar- i dont think thats a reflection of the quality of the schools teaching but the caliber of people who go there.  its a standardized test and from everything ive heard hardly something taht law schools spend much time preparing students to take.

36
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: high rankings vs special interests
« on: September 24, 2008, 04:21:33 PM »
Based on my own research combined with the collective wisdom of this board, I don't think you should limit yourself the schools you mentioned. With a 3.4 and a 170 you should have a really good shot at T-25, and probably T-14--especially if you end up scoring higher than 170. How are your ECs? Work experience? I have a 3.67 UGPA/4.0 in my major, and expect to score a 168-170 on the LSAT. I am applying to some lower ranked schools, mostly as safeties. But even so, I think I'll be sticking to the T-25.

Of course, the other point would be that if you have a decent school in your region that is strong in the area of law you want to practice in, AND if you are planning to practice in your region, you should certainly apply. If you want to stay in the NW, Lewis and Clark seems like it could be a good fit.

thanks for the encouragement- i know if i study hard enough i should be able to break 170, but at the same time i feel that my sub-average gpa could really hurt me.  i have a good amount of work experience- ive been a volunteer teacher's aide since high school, i have worked consistently throughout college, and spent one year logging 20 hours a week at a non-profit in addition to going to school full time and holding another part time job.  my resume is long, however im no ivy leaguer and am intimidated going into the application process when i read about people working at law firms and investment banks while i spent time doing washing dishes, brewing coffee, cleaning hotel rooms, etc.  L&C is a good fit for me because it has programs i'm interested in, and a lower ranking makes me think i could more easily get a higher class ranking, and the regional hiring and reputation is a huge plus.  however, i dont want to limit myself.  i guess i was thinking, should i shoot for t25 or look at say, 20-30 more closely?  other schools im interested in are:
boalt (long shot obviously)
penn
cornell
ucla
ut
usc
gw
notre dame
washington and lee
georgetown
michigan
hastings- i have a lot of family in SF, this would be a good fit also i think

thanks so much for responding!  any positive encouragement makes me feel a lot better about this process which is really kinda overwhelming right now, as im trying to write my statements and study for the lsat so i can get out those apps asap.

37
General Off-Topic Board / Re: why obama win
« on: September 23, 2008, 06:19:18 PM »
huh?  you are being mean and using way too many fallacies.

For the first time since I became aware of your existence, something you said was funny.
Congrats.  I know you try real hard.  Just know that it has paid off. 

the ad-hom.  nice opener.

Lest you get all excited and end up suicidal, try to think back to Kerry - by all accounts, he should have won in a landslide because all the liberals convinced themselves that everyone they knew were going to vote for Kerry.   Poll after poll showed Kerry ahead, pretty much throughout the election cycle.  Then the results came in - Bush won reelection fair and square.  Personally, I was destroyed.

http://www.ncpp.org/files/2004%20Election%20Polls%20Review.pdf

The polls were wrong 11% of the time, and with margin of error.  Personally- and this it a totally unscientific and skewed off the cuff analysis- I thought Kerry ran a poor campaign, was totally uncharismatic and never challenged Bush in a way that looked like it would make significant inroads in defeating an incumbent, something historically very hard to do.  Rolling over on the war, which at the time was still somewhat popular, and lacking significant domestic issues to run on, I personally was optimistic and hopeful but never really thought Kerry would win.  Some were hopeful and others resigned to a third Bush term; but as for the polls, your argument seems wrong.

Then I realized something that you should think about: Who takes polls?  I've never taken a poll.  No one I know has ever taken a poll.  My parents have never taken a poll and no one they know has ever taken a poll.  I've never met or spoken to anyone who's ever taken a poll.  What the hell kind of scam are these 'pollsters' running here?


Really?  You don't see the glaring fallacy in your poll of 'every person you have ever met' versus the professional pollers?  You think they are lying to you?  Does your burning anger at pollsters consume you to the point that you feel obligated to ask every person they meet if they have taken a poll recently?  Personally I don't know if anyone in my close family has taken a poll recently.  Saying that no one your parents know has ever taken a poll assumes that a) they asked every person they knew if they took a poll and b) they relayed that information to you.

Housewives and the unemployed.  The elderly and the disabled.  That's who takes polls.  Because those are the only people that are home when the polls are administered.  When you work all day, you don't have time to take a poll.  So how accurate are they really?  Housewives, the unemployed, and the disabled on public aid tend to skew left.

http://media.gallup.com/PDF/FAQ/HowArePolls.pdf

Wrong.  First of all, I have met plenty of disabled persons, housewives, and unemployed folks who vote for the GOP.  Secondly, pollsters are professional statisticians who develop techniques to account for such discrepancies, such as making repeat calls to the same number at different times to account for at-home patterns and make multiple calls to reduce the error of excluding certain groups based at their habits of being close to a phone at any given time.  Your guess that polls only occur 9-5 m-f is simply wrong, as is your assumption that being a working person requires you to only work those hour, because of course the economy shuts down nights and weekends.


That's why polls are so meaningless.  That's why the President of the US has a low approval rating, but when he speaks he is greeted by adoring, clapping admirers.  Because polls are nonsense.


Even if the president had say, a 10% approval rating, that is still 30 million adoring admirers ready to show up to any speaking event he makes.  The Bush-rally-attending GOP card holding loyalists are a statistical outlier and not indicative of the national mood.

Housewives don't like the president.  The unemployed blame him for being unemployed.

Huh?  How about stay-at-home moms who actually enjoy what they do and want to maintain a strong economy and national security so their husbands can continue to support them and their kids stay safe, the same moms who go to church faithfully and believe in hard work and tax cuts?  Or what about the eco-mommas who want nothing but to see an end to war and get solar panels on their roofs and healthy veggie meals at school?  But wait, I'm wrong, any made-up demographic like 'hockey mom' or 'woman' is a monolithic voting bloc.  Sorry, my bad.


My point is this - I don't underestimate the appeal of Obama to the stupid, the uneducated, and the party rabid loyalists.  Don't underestimate the appeal of McCain to the very people who see him as a hero, as someone to look up to, or as an illustration of the american dream.


It cuts both ways.  There are stupid uneducated people voting for McCain and there are others who see Obama as the American Dream as well, in addition to the legions of disgusted and widely disinterested others who will hold there noses and vote for whoever they think will screw them less (which, by my guess, is absolutely everyone).

38
Choosing the Right Law School / higher ranking vs specific program interest
« on: September 23, 2008, 04:32:37 PM »
oops!  i think i posted this over in the wrong forum - apologies.  now in the correct spot, some responses would be greatly appreciated.

so i just graduated from a lower-tier uc in june and am prepping for the lsats to apply for next fall.  with a gpa of 3.4 and an lsat score looking to be 165-175 (fingers crossed, but ill probably land somewhere around 170) im feeling just out of the running for a top 20 school and am now wondering, should i go for the highest ranked school i can get into or take a lower ranked school that feels like a better fit for me?  specifically i am looking heavily at lewis and clark- i love the area and the programs it offers seem awesome to me- indian law, public interest law, animal law, and a top ranked environmental law program all seem major pluses, but a low national ranking makes me think twice.  id love to get into a top school like cornell or ut austin, and feel like if i send out enough apps i might break into a top 30 school.  basically, should i go for the ranking and take the rep of a big name school or take my chances at my safety school even if i get into those higher ranked programs?  and, a follow up question, assuming a good lsat score, lets say 3.4/175, what would be my odds at the top schools in the country?

39
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / high rankings vs special interests
« on: September 23, 2008, 04:12:08 PM »
so i just graduated from a lower-tier uc in june and am prepping for the lsats to apply for next fall.  with a gpa of 3.4 and an lsat score looking to be 165-175 (fingers crossed, but ill probably land somewhere around 170) im feeling just out of the running for a top 20 school and am now wondering, should i go for the highest ranked school i can get into or take a lower ranked school that feels like a better fit for me?  specifically i am looking heavily at lewis and clark- i love the area and the programs it offers seem awesome to me- indian law, public interest law and a top ranked environmental law program all seem major pluses, but a low national ranking makes me think twice.  id love to get into a top school like cornell or ut austin, and feel like if i send out enough apps i might break into a top 30 school.  basically, should i go for the ranking and take the rep of a big name school or take my chances at my safety school even if i get into those higher ranked programs?  and, a follow up question, assuming a good lsat score, lets say 3.4/175, what would be my odds at the top schools in the country?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]