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 - changethegame
« on: September 28, 2010, 03:08:39 AM »
Nicholas Marsh, the prosecutor in the Ted Stevens corruption trial committed suicide. just want to get people's feelings on the topic of lawyers and the high depression and drug/alcohol abuse rates, beyond the normal "...man, that's f*cked up!" type of response.
Schools should have courses in place to teach 3L's to deal with their emotional issues. It would be a great use of one or two 3L courses.
What do y'all think? Do you have any stories that hit closer to home? Does it make you fearful of being an attorney? Do you think the job really does a job on attorneys, or do these people just have issues anyways? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2013011964_apusprosecutorsuicide.html
« on: September 28, 2010, 02:10:21 AM »
Why would you want to? I mean, basically with a 140 or below it will be tough to get into ANY law school with ANY GPA, I mean, I guess its possible, never thought of trying it. But its something that I don't see why anyone would want to.
But now that you mention it....interesting.
Not really. A friend of mine, actually a summer roommate, got a 136 on his LSAT (took it just once). He had a 2.8 GPA from Hofstra to go with it. He graduated from Vermont Law School in 2008 and is now making bank as an entertainment lawyer.
« on: September 26, 2010, 03:01:59 AM »
I love reading all of the responses, people, but please be sure to spell check and edit!
"So since you [sic] a rich white kid..."
« on: June 30, 2010, 03:13:37 AM »
Ok, this is something new. I consider myself to be pretty well-versed in admissions, but this is a really strange situation for me. U-Chicago still has me as "under consideration", and it was just updated again in June. My app went to them back in December of 2009 and went complete in early January.
They've been "considering" me for 6 months! Does Chicago do this a lot? Just wondering about the trend. The other school to consider me this late admitted me.
« on: January 01, 2010, 10:28:45 PM »
I am definitely headed for entertainment law, which would entail anything related to the biz...including the world of fashion. And, I love fashion! PM me and I will give you my number so we can talk.
« on: January 01, 2010, 10:25:17 PM »
WHY ARE YOU TYPING IN ALL CAPS?
What should you do?
1) learn to spell
2) hire a real lawyer, instead of asking for advice on a board for law students.
Also, that must be some really good "MEDACIN" considering nothing you typed was even semi-coherent.
Give OP the benefit of the doubt. How do we know he even has all of his fingers, or what effects his "medacin" has on his ability to function?
« on: January 01, 2010, 10:22:39 PM »
Even paying sticker at CCN is a pretty big risk nowadays with close to half of their 2Ls empty handed this year. Public service is getting pretty scarce. There are so many people, even at CCN, that went to law school to do public interest, built up a resume that really shows that, and yet got locked out this year. I find it hard to believe t4 students are getting jobs that CCN students aren't. Pretty much all public service has serious hiring freezes this year making it tough to get these jobs that weren't really all that tough to get before.
If true, that is cause for utter despair amongst law students everywhere.
Are the PI Jobs really that
tough to get, or is it an obviously tougher economy that has forced the hands of these graduates who now seek better paying jobs out of financial necessity or fear? I'm only suggesting that the economy may be causing those who once claimed they were interested in PI to go another direction.
« on: December 31, 2009, 09:30:29 PM »
Listen. I made a perfectly sound post to begin with, and has not changed.
1) I asserted that OP should have reasonably assumed that, as a T14 qualified URM, if he could get into Duke, he might have had a shot at Harvard.
2) I also said that, despite #1, it was understandable how he might not make that assumption, no matter how reasonable it is, because admissions for URM's at top and elite schools is a much wilder game for URM's than for white applicants.
3) Then I argued a reason: despite the "qualifications" that most URM's who gain aadmission to T14's carry, the evaluation of "soft factors" for URM's at the different schools (i.e., the relative weights applied to them), varies greatly. Hence, #3 is the reason for #2.
And the fact that you and your cohorts attempted to refute me (for what stupid reason, I don't know) makes your future prospects for law "#2". lol
The cruix of my argument in this thread has never changed. Do not get mad at me b/c you got caught in a flaw. BTW, I have been doing this for a long time (16 posts?...guess again neophyte!). And there was nothing in my posts that you could refute, so you were wasting your time. The problem with you self-entitled white dudes is that you get emotionally involved when it comes to discussing URM admissions, which suggests that you are nothing more than bigots who will fight anyone you suspect to be URM or in support of a URM. In truth, you are mad b/c you can't go to Duke or Harvard...it pisses you off.
As for change...I'll tell you what keeps changing. I have been reading anti-AA arguments here and on TLS for the past five years, and they never change. Funny thing is, the exact arguments I made in support of my argument in this post are the exact types of arguments the anti-AA zealots make in opposition to AA. In other words, you guys agree with what I have posted in this thread, but only when it's convenient. Hence, I am not the one changing my arguments...YOU ARE!
It never changes...you are just idiots, PERIOD...speaking of...are you on yours or what? Let it go!
I am done with this thread. Talk if you want to, but i have better things to do, and you will look silly to keep this dialogue going.
« on: December 31, 2009, 05:53:46 PM »
I'm not trying to be rude, but you constantly claim to be misunderstood or state that others are missing the point. For someone who only has 16 total posts, the frequency of all the misunderstandings suggests that there's a real issue in your clarity and ability to express ideas. I'm not arguing your major point or any of your points, however, I think it's important to mention that if people are consistently having problems following your logic - it's not them.
No! I am NOT saying that....
How did you guys do on the reading comp portion of the LSAT? I'm guessing not too well. I am being severely misquoted here.
You guys don't get it. And I am not going to explain it.
You missed the entire point of my post. What I was saying was that...
This post is great.
If people are having trouble following my logic it's because they cannot comprehend good logic. My professors didn't have any problems with it. (wink) Besides, I have already pointed out the "flaw of 'commission'" in one of your assumptions. You all assumed, without warrant, (how is that for LSAT language?)that, by "qualifications" I was speaking of "numerical indeces" alone, and you did so because of your prevailing, and biased belief that only the people with the highest grades and LSAT scores are the most qualified....that is a flawed assumption...one the adcoms would agree that you and the others you are defending made. In other words, you assumed that one could not be "qualified" for admission to a particular school without having the typical numbers for a given school, and you also assumed that I held this same belief.
And unless you can disprove what I am saying about soft factors and the effects they have on the relative predictability/unpredictability of URM admissions at "elite" and "top" schools (which, on any other day, you would certainly agree with when opposing so-called AA), you have been soundly beaten in this argument. So do yourselves a favor and give it up. I love how people question my clarity and call my arguments "flawed" but can never pinpoint the flaw, as I have done with your arguments above.
« on: December 31, 2009, 05:16:53 PM »
Define "average school." If you're talking about anything below t14 ITE, that's when you need to be worried about getting "overlooked in the job market" entirely.
I mean, fair enough. But if he really only wants shitlaw, most of T1 should be okay.
Edited to add: Again, you have to reallllly want to be a lawyer to justify resigning yourself to huge debt and a crappy salary. If that doesn't sound like a good time, then yes, you shouldn't go to a school outside of the top 10 or so.
Whoa...slow your roll! First, we need to define "elite" versus "top". Top-10 schools are not "top" schools...they are "elites", as are the next 8-10 schools. HYS are the "most elite" and CCN (as well as PMNVB) are power schools that are right behind them. But the rest of the top-20 or so are still "elite" schools. "Top schools" are anything numbered or perceived in terms of "lay prestige" to be 21-50 or so, and there's not a lot of difference between them, except to the extent that some wide-eyed 0L puts stock in the USNWR rankings. Law school definitely has some elitism going on, but it's not as exclusive as you make it out to be.
Grads from UCLA, Texas, USC, Vandy, and WUSTL do just fine. And grads from Minnesota, Boston College, GWU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Wake, Emory, UNC, Tulane, W & L, and W & M do great also. Yes, the economy is tough, and it affects the grads from lower ranked schools moreso than those from the elites, but if you make the top-50 and even a few schools outside of it, you have done pretty well for yourself. The top-50 is like the difference between getting a Bentley or Ferrari (HYSCCN), a Mercedes-500 or BMW 7 series (#7-20), or small Mercedes or 3 or 5 Series BMW (#21-50). People should still be pretty excited about that small Mercedes or smaller BMW...it's better than a Honda/top-100 (which is still "decent"), and certainly better than a Hyundai (T3), and let's not talk about some used Pinto or Pacer (T4).
The difference between an elite school and a top school is that you can finish just about anywhere in the class at an elite school (but near the bottom) and still have a chance at a good paying job. At least, that's the way it is in a decent economy. The difference between the top schools (21-50) and the rest is that you can get a good job by finishing in the top-half of your class. You may have to use career services more, but if you can make top-50% at a school ranked 50 or above, you can get a good job, BigLaw or not. At top schools, you will generally need to be in the top 10-20% to go BigLaw. At the rest of the schools, you're talking top-5-10%. At a T3 or T4 not named Howard, Suffolk and a few others, you need to be the king/queen bee...top five or 10 "students"!
And remember this, employers don't think in terms of ranking, they think in terms of familiarity with the graduates of particular schools. If a firm in L.A. has a really good history with Loyola grads, Minnesota grads (despite hailing from a consensus top-20 school) are at a disadvantage, if the hiring partners don't know Minnesota or its grads very well. They might hear or understand that it's a great school, but they don't know if a Minnesota grad can do entertainment law the way a Loyola grad can, and they may not have anyone in the firm (in a key position) with loyalties to UM. It's politics, and grads from every school but HYS can bank on experiencing it to some degree or another.
That is the type of dynamic that plays out when career services gets involved. If it's OCI, obviously the firm is coveting graduates of a school because they are simply top grads from certain schools, or, because of their familiarity. But once we are talking students ranked in the 60th percentile, firms are going mostly on familiarity.