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 - Denny Shore

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13
Current Law Students / Re: Why is Cooley Law so despised?
« on: February 08, 2010, 11:20:10 AM »
Several reasons:
1) low admission standards.  With my crappy UGPA and mediocre LSAT score, I was offered a scholarship there.  No other school offered me anything.  Their admission standards reflect a student body that is less than qualified.
2) high failure rate.  Students report a high academic dismissal rate, and not just in the first year.  I read a students account of being dismissed in their third year or told that they needed one surprise class to graduate just months prior to expected graduation.  Cooley reported academic attrition for one L's of 317 students.
3)  low bar passage rate.  The state passage rate is 85%.  Cooley's average is 67%.
4)  High cost.  They charge as much as far superior schools.
5) their students.  No offense intended, but many Cooley students seem to believe themselves superior to other law students.  I can't, for the life of me, understand why.  I can almost grasp how a Harvard One L could talk down to me, but a Cooley student?  Puh-leeze. 

Cooley is not well respected amongst large law firms or government agencies either.  It seems that only three groups of people regard Cooley as a great school: Employees of the school, students, and those relatively few alumni who have succeeded with their JD from Cooley.

Not all law schools are equal.  Cooley represents an opportunity for potential students with mediocre grades and bad LSAT scores to go to law school.  That's why.  You will not see a Cooley One L with a 4.0 UGPA and a 175 on their LSAT.  Why do you think that is?

Current Law Students / Re: Grades
« on: February 04, 2010, 10:42:08 AM »
Depends on the curve.
Our Contracts final had an extremely tight curve.  I got a raw score of 79% and ended up with a C, my only stupid C.  of course, it didn't help that the prof coddled most of the students (apparently even providing model answers to questions that ended up on the test, and a lot of them, to specific student).
However, for the most part a raw score of 75% CAN lead to an A after the curve.  In some case, it may simply be a B or B+.  I've done test reviews with prof's where a raw score of 60% translated into a B as well as raw scores of 40% translating to a C.  For the most part, curve systems increase grades.
However, I know someone who got a raw score of 50% and got a D.  When he spoke to the prof, he was told that his class was extremely competitive (more so than usual) and had he taken the same test and received the same score the previous semester, he would have received a C.
That is the most important factor in curved grades: how well other students did.  If your class is full of morons who don't study or prepare, a "mediocre" score can be awesome.  If your class is full of dedicated, hard working, very intelligent students, you might get screwed.

I am basing my advice on the fact that attend John Marshall law school.
Go to Depaul or Loyola.  Almost no one transfers out successfully from JMLS.  Additionally, JMLS requires professors to give grade of D or F to "no fewer than 10% and no more than 20% of the class" while Depaul, most reasonably, require professors to adhere to a curve that requires a grade of "C or below" to 15%-20% of the class.
JMLS fails out more students every year than all the other law schools in the state combined by a wide margin.
While I realize you are probably thinking "this won't happen to me", that's what everyone says.  I've seen students with exemplary LSAT and UGPA's fail out, so the point is that it CAN happen to you.
Given the choice to do it all over again, I'd have waited another cycle for a shot to go anywhere else.
Steer clear of JMLS.  One of my former fellow students gave up admission to Kent because JMLS offered him scholarship money.  I haven't seen him since finals and can confirm that he was booted.  If he wants to return, he can wait a full academic calendar year and petition for readmission or wait two academic calendar years and apply elsewhere.  I spoke with him a few days ago and, for now, he's decided to get a master's degree instead and forget about law school altogether.
JMLS has the WORST grading curve for 1L's, which is funny because it becomes virtually impossible to get below a C 2L and beyond in any class unless you swear at your professors and/or sexually molest their children.
I would advise ANYONE considering attending JMLS that has already gained acceptance elsewhere to avoid the school like the plague.
While I'm sure I sound bitter, I doubt you will find any contrary opinions in light of the information available here:
and the data available on
Prior year data regarding academic attrition for JMLS was 42 students.
Kent: 10
Depaul: 11
Loyola: 1
U of C: 0
U of I: 1
NIU: 2
Northwestern: 0
SIU: 2
Fun with numbers!
All law schools in Illinois, not including JMLS, academically dismissed a grand total of 27 students.  JMLS, by themselves, dismissed 42!  I'm no math whiz, but that speaks to an institutional issue and not to the quality of student.
Put another way, you are 42 times more likely to face academic dismissal from JMLS than you are from Loyola and almost 4 times as likely than at Depaul.
This is not a commentary as to the quality of education or student, but rather a bit of damning evidence as to a fundamental institutionalized rate of failure due entirely to a ridiculous, meaningless, arbitrary requirement that for every class at JMLS, no fewer than 10% and no more than 20% of all students must receive a D or an F.  No other school so harshly attempts to demoralize and dismiss students.
There are other reasons to elect to go to the other schools you have been accepted at, but none more obvious than this.

Current Law Students / Re: FBI background checks
« on: January 26, 2010, 07:13:57 AM »
so many words, so little value. Once again dummy just asking if those who mentioned it in the past themselves had done it yet. I've been in, had them verify my facts. Hope you enjoyed the useless extra fingerplay though, but I am guessing that your used to useing your hands all night long.  ::)

Oh, I get it.  You did, in fact, lie and just wanted to see if others did, in fact, lie.  You 'verified' that expunged information from your record is reflected on your FBI background.  You are aware, though, that expunging your records doesn't make them completely disappear, right?  Just because it has been expunged does not mean that it doesn't exist.  It is merely treated as if it doesn't exist.  

As I said before, if it is your intention to use this information to provide information you know to be false, you risk your license, your degree, etc.  If you think that because you couldn't find it on an FBI background check, the Bar won't be able to find it, you are seriously mistaken.  

I assume that the sentence: "I am guessing that your used to useing your hands all night long." is a reference to masturbation.  Of course, you spelled "your" and "useing" wrong (should have been "you're" and "using").  Plus, I'm engaged and will be married soon.  It's ok.  You keep on proving how smart you are by using (or should I say "useing") ad hominem based on assumption.  It's quite charming.

Similarly charming is your propensity for going out of your way to attempt to start internet fights with anyone who responded to this thread.  Go back and take a look at how you responded to every single person who posted here.  You just couldn't resist, could you?  Instead of reading what they wrote and responding logically, you attacked in every post.  Why do you feel the need to do that?  Seriously, take a look.  I asked a question and gave a recommendation.  Maybe I misunderstood your post, but to clarify, I asked a question.  Your response was to criticize me for recommending contacting an attorney to get information, then to call into question my own abilities to advocate.  Does that sound reasonable to you?  Why are you surprised that after attacking me personally, things turned ugly?  As a matter of fact, EVERY post you added to this thread contained ad hominem attacks.

Current Law Students / Re: FBI background checks
« on: January 25, 2010, 04:44:53 PM »
You say cooley is the retard in class, but if we're smarter than you whats that say about you Einstein?  :P

Thought I'm sure you think what you wrote illustrates a superior intellect, I assure you that your opinion is both flawed and baseless.
Nothing you have said has proven that you are 'smarter than' me.  What it says about me is that I understand the English language, logic, and the importance of knowing that I do not know everything.
What does it say about you that to date you have not received a single vote of support in your clearly incorrect stream of assertions?  That you are smart?  That you are correct?  It says that you are delusional and confused.  You have not only failed to prove a higher intelligence, but failed to adequately argue your own position.
Your argument seems to rely on several factual inaccuracies, almost entirely grounded in your mistaken beliefs, assumptions, and understanding.  You rely on ad hominem and them wonder why you yourself have fallen victim to it.  Yup, you sure are smarter than me.
You asked for opinions.  I gave one.  Specifically, you asked about FBI background checks prior to making an application.  I questioned as to why it would be necessary, since it only serves to either correctly or incorrectly allow you to lie on your application.  Next, I tried to explain that intentionally providing misleading and factually incorrect information on an application in an effort to avoid a problem runs a very high risk of backfiring and actually causing a problem during the C&F portion of your bar application, assuming you are capable of making it through law school.  Your responses have been bewildering.  I suggested hiring an attorney to pull your records and you reacted by making an argument against the need to hire an attorney for anything you believe you are qualified to do yourself.  To strengthen your argument, you advocate that a wino is allowed to argue his own case, either ignoring or showing your own ignorance that though this is a technically allowable course of action, the results of such a poorly considered option would inarguably be disastrous.
Finally, you seem to be proud of attending (or perhaps hoping to attend) on of the lowest ranked and least respected law school in the country.  To make this a little clearer for you, I never said Cooley is the "retard in class", you did.  I said that if the school has encouraged you to believe that lying on a law school application is acceptable if there is no record due to expungement, they have already failed you.  
Instead of loudly proclaiming your own stupidity by attacking others as less "smart", why not explain why the FBI check is necessary?  What question can be altered with this knowledge?
This was taken directly from the Cooley application:
"CHARACTER AND FITNESS QUESTIONS: The remaining questions require you to disclose whether you have a history of criminal or civil offenses or academic, work-related, or military disciplinary actions, whether those matters appear on your record or not. The Thomas M. Cooley Law School does not necessarily deny admission simply because an applicant has a history of criminal or civil offenses or disciplinary matters. In making admissions decisions, the Law School considers the nature, number, and date of offenses in light of the requirements for participation in its programs. If you do not disclose your complete history here, regardless of your reason or state of mind, the Law School may, upon discovering your failure to disclose, subject you to discipline up to and including denial of admission, revocation of admission,
suspension or dismissal after matriculation, withdrawal of certification of graduation to bar authorities, or revocation of degree. The Law School has imposed all of these sanctions. Even if the law school does not discover your history before you graduate, bar investigation and licensing authorities will do so when you apply for bar admission. These authorities will inform the law school, which may initiate disciplinary proceedings for failure to disclose. The Thomas M. Cooley Law School reserves the right to conduct complete history checks of any applicant. Failure to cooperate completely in this process will result in denial of the opportunity to matriculate and revocation of acceptance. (If you are not sure about the nature or ultimate disposition of a particular charge, you must check court records before you answer the following questions.)"

So, as I stated prior to having to f-ing spell it out for you - WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE FBI BACKGROUND CHECK?
Is it to avoid answering a question honestly?  Or are you merely curious if the case your were charged with had been completely erased?  
See, a smart person would recognize how truly insignificant of a question you asked.  Failure to be forthright regarding criminal or civil proceedings, charges, convictions, etc. can result in, but is not limited to:
- revocation of acceptance
- denial of admission
- suspension or dismissal after matriculation
- withdrawal of certification of graduation to bar authorities
- revocation of degree
- denial of bar certification pre or post bar passage

So to answer your initial question:  Though some have presumably done this, the fact that a record has been expunged does not give you license to misrepresent, omit, obscure, or flat out lie about any part of your history.  There is a high risk involved in relying on the FBI check because failure to accurately answer questions as to your criminal/civil legal past will likely result in you not being able to practice law, attend law school, or obtain a JD.

That's enough for now.  If you were truly "smarter" than me, you might have taken to time to recognize just how ridiculous your initial question and subsequent responses have been.
Again, good luck to you.  I hope you didn't choose to lie about expunged records.  If you did, say goodbye to any hope of ever practicing law (or be "smart" and once admitted, amend your responses with the correct department in the law school).  I sure hope your potential future clients are unaware of your opinion that consulting an attorney on matters significant is a stupid, wasteful enterprise or else you may find yourself penniless.

Current Law Students / Re: FBI background checks
« on: January 24, 2010, 04:51:49 PM »
This thread has officially become another reason why Cooley should have its ABA accreditation revoked, effective immediately.
I'm sure there are some decent students attending that school.  I am also sure that 'cooleylawstudent' isn't one of them....
They will let a homeless wino represent themselves, that's true.  However, using my intelligence I can assure you that the result will inevitably be less than favorable for said homeless wino.
As for the rest of your bull about how my school poorly teaches me to be a fact finder, I assume that Cooley must be doing you a great disservice by instilling in you (or worse yet, encouraging) a sense of mastery over all things legal.  Here's the rub, dummy - you don't go to Harvard.  Bragging about going to Cooley by referring to it as your username is like bragging about being the smartest moron.
Cooley has the LOWEST standards and churns out some of the worst trained and ill-prepared attorneys in these United States.  My GPA and LSAT wasn't anything to brag about - they barely got me in where I attend.  Cooley offered me a scholarship.  I turned it down because one day, I'd like to actually be qualified to practice law.
Good luck with your future endeavors.  If you ever practice, please come to Illinois, work as states attorney, and make sure to introduce yourself to every attorney your encounter as a graduate of Cooley.  That way, I can take greater pleasure in absolutely demolishing you in court.
Best wishes!

Current Law Students / Re: FBI background checks
« on: January 23, 2010, 03:14:46 PM »
For the clean nothing, for the punks who as kids did dumb poo and then had it expunged plenty. FYI just becuase your county dosnt have it dosnt mean that other agencies dont still have it on file, and if you need to pay an attorney to do it for you then why plan to help others when you cant help yourself? You are your first client, if you wouldnt recomend yourself to yourself whats that say?  ???

it says I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything.  It also says that I am not an attorney.  WTF is wrong with you?

You didn't mention or imply that expungements are at play.  Had you properly explained your own question, or at least made it clear without attacking another person (who, by the way, IS a law student - and not at Cooley), you might have received a completely different answer.
The question is simple: what question are you trying to answer that you believe a check of FBI files would change the answer?
If the question is: Have you ever been arrested for crime, regardless of whether or not you have been convicted? - it depends - if you want to lie and possibly run afoul of the C&F issue, go ahead and say that you haven't because it has been expunged.  It would amount to a coin flip.
Last year I worked with an attorney who had a client ask him specifically how to handle expunged charges on a law school application - the answer was simple and arguably the best: answer honestly.  The point of those sorts of questions is to determine if you are willing to lie to get ahead.  Your advice, it appears, is to lie if the likelihood of being caught is low enough.  Your advice, I would argue, is the worst possible advice to give yourself.

As for your assertion that consulting an attorney is stupid or dumb for a law student or potential law student to do when they have a legal question, I'd politely remind you that you are not a qualified attorney, nor are you qualified to give proper legal advice.  By the way, since you are so fond of self-administering legal advice - why did you post the question here?  Was it because you were looking for another opinion?

As a LAW STUDENT, I am in no position to give legal representation to myself or others, making your assertion that hiring someone WITH legal knowledge (and a license) to properly research your record an example of your own inadequate ability to "help" anyone.  Hiring an attorney to examine your criminal record is a perfectly legitimate (and intelligent) course of action.  Especially since your hypothetical seems to indicate that you have made some horrible, damning decisions in your own life. 

« on: January 22, 2010, 10:17:21 AM »
If you already have a full time job, your options are limited.
Volunteer at a state's attorney's office, a public defenders office, or a legal clinic on weekends maybe?
Full time students similarly situated should consider doing unpaid internships at law firms or states attorneys offices.  I doubt you'll find much in the realm of sports law, especially since as 1L, you don't know nearly enough to do anything that specific.  If you were a principle at a sports law firm, would you want to deal with a 1L or would you be looking for 2 or 3L's who can actually help you do your job?
I'd go get experience with the state and worry about sports law after 1L is over....  This is one of the downsides to working full time and attending school part time - you take longer to accumulate the requisite knowledge and you don't have time to do full time internships/get experience.

Current Law Students / Re: FBI background checks
« on: January 22, 2010, 10:12:48 AM »
I'd say that if you think this is necessary, you might be in trouble getting in to law school.  Seriously - what possible information could be in your background that the FBI would have that you wouldn't already be aware of?
If you want to see what is on your record, find an attorney and ask him to pull your records - where I live, most of the information can be pulled off a computer at the county clerks office.  Of course, most students' records include nothing more than a few speeding tickets or accidents, which wouldn't show up on an FBI search.
What would a person be concerned could show up on an FBI background check?

Current Law Students / Re: Are other 1Ls still waiting on grades?
« on: January 14, 2010, 10:33:48 AM »
We don't get grades until January 25 which I find to be wholly ridiculous.

Welcome to law school :).

You misunderstand. It's not that professors aren't done grading, it's that the school doesn't release them until January 25. In theory, all our grades could be in to the registrar by now.

According to my school, all grades are posted THE SAME DAY they are received from the professors.  Maybe your school is different.  Maybe not.  In my case, it IS in fact the prof's fault.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13