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 - TTom

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13
Dear bottledwater,

I recommend you do what Nola504 did: simply write your own letters of recommendation. Why deal with the hassle of getting them when you can whip up something super special and just forge somebody else's name to it?

For starters, I recommend something short and sweet, like:

Dear Law School,

Bottledwater would be an ideal candidate for law school because HE IS THE LAW!!!


Barack Obama.

I asked my boss to write a letter of rec and he said he would do it. As time progressed, he never did it and went out of town. He told me to write it and he would sign it.

The deadline was approaching so I wrote it and sent it off without having him review it. LSAC contacted him and he said that he would have wrote it but didnt. Now I am under invsetigation. I already have three acceptance letters but I know that the offers will be rescinded when they hear about this.

My options are to appeal via letter or do nothing. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two points:
First, you're an idiot.
Second, I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse. Seriously, forging a signature on a letter of recommendation? You should never be allowed to practice law.


Yikes. I tried this once and it completely bit me in the ass, i.e., lowest grade in law school. It wasn't an easy class for me to begin with. I just figured that because I was already behind in it (with no hope of catching up), that the best thing to do with my available time was focus on all my other classes. Then, toward the end of the semester, I'd teach myself the class through supplements. Did not work.

Your situation might be different?

Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: Ohio State vs. IU-Bloomington
« on: February 16, 2009, 02:04:34 PM »
Full disclosure: I am from Columbus, I have only visited OSU & Capital. I am not an OSU football fan.

I did not like OSU's facilities. I would say that most of the classrooms looked like they were last updated in 1970. They showed one classroom that looked like it was re-done around 2000 or so. The library seemed nice. The law school also has some ties to a new section of OSU's campus called the Gateway, which was completed around 2004 or so. It is good for entertainment,shopping, dining, and so forth.

OSU has a huge campus with a lot of stuff to do. Also, if you are not sure where you want to practice, OSU is probably your better bet since it is a little more "well known". It is also CHEAP.

Never been to Indy, so I cant give any type of opinion.

1. OSU is not "better known," than IU-B. (That is, you have no way of backing up such an absurd statement).
2. IU-B is not in "Indy."

Maybe in the future, Jarfrey, you might not want to spout off about things you don't know anything about. Just a thought.

Current Law Students / Re: What constitutes "good grades"?
« on: February 16, 2009, 10:21:30 AM »
I'm still sort of confused about why you feel the system is so "unfair."  From my understanding, part-timers take (almost) all of their classes with other part-timers, and full-timers with full-timers.  Therefore, in each individual class, your performance on the exam is curved in relation to your fellow part-timers.  If the same 3.0 curve is used for both part-time and full-time sections, the grade breakdown should be very similar for each section.  While your GPA upon graduation is compared to the those of full-time students, you earned that GPA competing against fellow part-timers--your peer group.  Maybe the top 10% of part-timers are much smarter, or vice versa, but that doesn't change the fact that the top 10% should be essentially the same grade cutoff.  Curves are designed to account for differences amongst different sections, and to remedy the exact problem of which you complain.

I already explained it adequately enough.  They should keep us ranked only with the part-timers until the VERY END.  It ISN'T fair to lump us together with the full-timers, who have more opportunities to excel in law school (I already listed them above), especially since we had for 3 years been ranked with just the part-timers.  Trust me, if you were in the part-time program, being ranked with the part-timers, and then suddenly find that your top one-third rank from the first 3 years is lost when lumped together with the full-timers, you would be highly pissed.  Being ranked in the top one-third is what gives you a much better opportunity to obtain an attorney job upon graduation and passing the bar.  The fact that you achieved that among your real peers (the part-timers) and yet had that taken away from you when suddenly compared to the full-timers (who aren't your peers) is unfair.  Period.

Your argument is crap. Everyone, whether it be full-timers or part-timers, has different obstacles. Maybe UNLV should create a separate ranking for students with kids too. And why stop there? There should be a number one in the class with 1 kid, a number one in the class with 2 kids and so on.

Further, part-timers statistically have lower LSATs and GPAs than full-timers. By having a separate ranking system you're essentially saying that UNLV should institute a handicap scheme.

At my school we have two journals. Interestingly, almost none of the 2Ls on either journal wanted to be EICJ and only two people ran for the position on each journal. Even more interesting is the fact that the people who ran were the most unlikeable people on their journals. So although employers may be impressed by someone being EICJ, at my school it was the job that nobody wanted.

Maybe all of you guys majored in Business Finance and/or had sweet careers that you knew you wouldn't get canned from before attending law school.  But one thing I'm pretty sure of: Philosophy majors with no work experience relevant to anything besides digging holes and scooping ice cream do a lot worse than people with JDs, in spite of added debt, even IN THIS ECONOMY!

You're talking about law students at Chicago, I can only assume.  People who come out at the middle of the class at a school ranked 30 (let alone the 170 accredited law schools ranked lower than 30) don't have prospects that are too much better than your average philosophy major's.  And your average philosophy major doesn't have huge debt.

TITCR. For some applicants the opportunity cost of going to law school is very low.

The blessed few who can go without any debt.  Otherwise, taking out 150k pretty much outweighs the low opportunity cost of quitting your low-paying job.

If you go to a T14 and your odds of getting a Biglaw job (or having a strong LRAP program, if you're into PI), then it's a winning proposition.  Otherwise, it's obviously not a financially sound choice.

(Can somebody find a good Black Thursday link for these 0Ls?)

I think it is ridiculous to claim that an undergrad exiting school with a Philosophy degree has similar prospects to someone who has a JD from a school in the top 50.  Come on.

Yeah. That was bs.

But I'd guess less than 25% of t-50 students will make 100k+ right out of law school.

I think I'd be able to get by on only 100K/year starting out.

If I remember correctly, something like less than 20% of graduating students will make 100k+ a year. And 38% will make less than 55k.

For the record, without knowing what schools are being discussed here or what your situation is exactly, I would tend to say go to the tier 1. My points were only in response  to 'T Tom' who seems to think despite reasonable evidence that virtually all students at T3s are notably worse than virtually all students in T1s.


Most students at ttt schools ARE worse than students at tier 1s. This is not hyperbole; this is fact. Compare GPAs, LSAT scores, and the rigor of undergraduate education for incoming students. There is no reasonable evidence to the contrary.


I've been with you in other threads, but this statement is too much of a generalization.  I use myself and my experience as an example... I had a 3.5 gpa at the #1 rated public school in the country and was on full scholarship during my entire undergrad enrollment.  I took the LSAT with no prep and didn't do well by the standards of this internet board.  Do I wish I'd retaken and had a better starting point for my legal career?  You bet.  Will my enrollment in a non T-14 hurt my job prospects?  It currently is...

However, would I tip my hat and say most of the students at T1s are better students/smarter than me?  I don't think so.  Do they work harder?  With curves as generous as 3.3/3.5...I doubt it.  There were ridiculously idiotic people at my T4 that did not survive, but those who did worked pretty hard and had impressive undergrad credentials.  Now if you bow at the feet of the LSAT and feel it is the ultimate predictor of law school prowess... I'll never be able to dissuade you.  

BUT... T4s suck.  It is not nearly the same educational experience as that given at top 100 schools, sorry to all the "want to be believers," but its true.  Several should be closed.  As for the whole top 5% at a T4 vs top 25% at a T1... the point is moot for initial job opportunities.  The employers looking at top 25% of the class at a T-1 simply do not have to read T-4 resumes to fill positions, and they don't.  They don't go to T-4 campuses for OCI, don't give even courtesy interviews, and rarely hire unless the applicant is:

1.  Well networked
2.  An alumnus at the firm is from the T4 and has input in hiring (it does happen sometimes)
3.  You have a direct connection to the firm

***my legal disclaimer... I've taken law school classes for grades at Boalt/Valparaiso/and Lewis and Clark and due to personal/family connections have extensive knowledge of hiring practices at major law firms.  My problem is that I'd rather tie my manhood to a pace car at the Daytona 500 for a few laps than sell my soul for BIGLAW.  

Good luck to you guys

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I tend to exaggerate. People hold me to my exaggerations, which I then feel compelled to defend. Sometimes my exaggerations are indefensible. The only part where I really disagree with you is where you wrote that you didn't prep for the LSAT but that students at tier 1 schools weren't harder workers. It's one or the other, isn't it? Wouldn't a hard worker have prepped?

I don't think the LSAT is the end-all-be-all, but it is an excellent gauge of critical thinking skills. Honestly, if you can't do relatively well on the LSAT, how are you going to understand concepts like the rule against perpetuities? Just as not everyone is allowed to get an MD and practice medicine, not everyone should be allowed to practice law. Doing so dilutes the strength of the profession and hurts laypersons.

For the record, without knowing what schools are being discussed here or what your situation is exactly, I would tend to say go to the tier 1. My points were only in response  to 'T Tom' who seems to think despite reasonable evidence that virtually all students at T3s are notably worse than virtually all students in T1s.


Most students at ttt schools ARE worse than students at tier 1s
. This is not hyperbole; this is fact. Compare GPAs, LSAT scores, and the rigor of undergraduate education for incoming students. There is no reasonable evidence to the contrary.

I never said that the average student a TTT was better or even comparable the average student at a tier 1 what I had said was that there is an overlap between similarly qualified students in some T3 versus lower end T1 schools.

To back up this point I noted for example Chapman's 75th percentile LSAT which is higher than the 25th percentile LSAT at some tier 1 and within a reasonable range of the median at these same schools. I think that is indeed reasonable evidence that you were wrong when you said

 "99% of your cohorts at Chapman couldn't get into a tier 1 school"

Of course you would probably admit that this was hyperbole and that even the number was more like 85% your original point was still generally correct. However, I would say that then you would have to go back and reconsider your argument that someone at top 5th percentile of their class at TTT would be infinitely less attractive than someone at the 25th percentile of their class at a school ranked 46th.

5% at Chapman does not equal 25% at Florida. Not even close. Maybe 50%. Maybe.

Please do me a favor and check the V100 firms to tell me if Chapman has any graduates working for them. I'm too lazy, although I suspect the answer is no.


ps To all those folks at Chapman, sorry for using you as an example. But I suspect you know that your job prospects aren't good.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13