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
« on: November 29, 2008, 04:58:22 PM »
It sounds like you have your head so far up your ass that you are gonna need a colonic just to see daylight. Let's start with the fact that you are complaining about making 160,000 fresh out of school. Should I call the waambluance for you? Despite the fact that you think you are "not rich" you live in a studio that costs 28k per year. There are many many teachers in this world that have worked for over a decade and still don't make 40k a year. Do you think they are stuck in "the 8ft by 7ft cramped-living-space-with-no-window routine" or that they somehow enjoy it? Furthermore, you still make enough money to have a nice travel allowance and pay lots for "living expenses" which while you don't specify the general tone of your post makes me think that you are eating out at great restaurants, probably going to shows, wearing very nice threads, and taking nice classy vacations. So, you are left over after all your playboy life expenses (bear in mind that even with you "crippling debt" you are still one of the most priveleged and lucky human beings in the history of the earth, spending-power wise) you take home "only" around 60k (again enough to pay the salary of two public school teachers who hold advanced degrees in education and work 50-60 hours a week dealing with emotionally disturbed, violent, or disabled children...again explain to me why you deserve sympathy?) which to you is somehow not enough money because you have 6 figure debt. Now, if you were actually frugal you could probably pay of your debt within 5 years but it seems you are enjoying blowing massive wads of cash in every direction right now so that must be out of the question. The fact that you had to borrow money to make it through the summer is also laughable, I know plenty of people who in recent months have been laid off, had hours cut, or are college grads who can't find work and yet manage to scrape by without taking out massive loans (I'm assuming you never got your living expenses below $1000/month, and OMG that's not impossible). To add to your general arrogance, you assume you will only live an acceptable life if you make partner and compare the odds of that to winning the lotto which is clearly not the case, since the lotto is roughly 18 million to one while you already have the foot in the door at some of these firms, are from a top 20 school and seem to have it made- and while maybe its not likely odds of even say 20 to 1 or 100 to 1 are still infinitely better than the lottery, and your "fallback" prize is a 160k per year job with 40k per year bonuses- and you are complaining 112k per year after taxes because (hold on I'm starting to tear up here, let me grab some tissue) your plush 200k job actually gets taxed I mean with that extra 80k imagine how much better your life would be, I mean you could finally make it out of poverty! Oh wait...
In short, this is exactly the sort of arrogance and hubris that makes people in this world hate lawyers, and in this case with a good amount of justification. How about you try driving the bus for a year and see how you feel about the taxes you have to pay then? Your 28k studio isn't gonna seem so reasonable then, I think.
« on: November 26, 2008, 01:01:39 AM »
No GPA to go off of, but I'll predict Yale.
Thanks...you guys make overly generous assumptions.
As for Reynolds, I'd guess WUSTL or Vandy (after WL).
since your pic exudes the aura of the philosopher-vagrant-naturalist-lawyer, im gonna see lewis and clark, with $$$$.
« on: November 25, 2008, 12:54:34 PM »
I've always wondered this. I've never been able to find scholarships for kids raised by one parent, nor any indication that this situation is considered some sort of disadvantaged or minority-worthy status. Which is odd, because I can say from personal experience that it is very tough and makes a lot of things in life a little bit harder.
« on: November 25, 2008, 12:50:37 PM »
I applied to Texas on 11/10 (LSDAS file sent 11/11) and UCLA on 11/13 (LSDAS file sent on 11/13) and have yet to recieve an email confirmation from either school.
I think I've heard that UCLA can tend to be a little slow, does anyone know how quick Texas has been?
(I'm worried because for some reason my Berkeley app got lost in the mess and JUST went complete after I applied on 10/1......)
I received an email from Texas within a week, so you might want to at least call them and see what's up. Can't hurt any
« on: November 25, 2008, 12:46:16 PM »
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?
« on: November 24, 2008, 05:14:02 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.
« on: November 24, 2008, 04:50:44 PM »
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.
« on: November 24, 2008, 04:26:08 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.
« on: September 24, 2008, 06:29:39 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.
« on: September 24, 2008, 06:21:33 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)
washington and lee
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.