I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but are there conditions on either scholarship (by conditions, I mean a requirement that you meet a certain GPA or class rank)?
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 - the white rabbit
« on: February 15, 2010, 06:13:07 PM »
It only states that as long as I remain in good academic standing. It does not specify a minimum GPA or top percentage of the class, so it does not seem to have many strings attached.
That sounds like a pretty good deal. Let us know how you end up deciding.
« on: February 15, 2010, 05:20:43 PM »
Thanks for the help!
You never addressed the question of conditions on the scholarship. Is it guaranteed or do you need to maintain a certain average?
« on: February 15, 2010, 05:12:15 PM »
JasonTaylor Dr. Balsenchaft is right there will be some doors closed to you if you are a T-2, T-3, T-4 student. People that get into Harvard, Yale, Standford are brilliant and more than likely the worst student at Harvard would probably be near the top of the class at the T-4 I attend. However, this board often seems to make T-4, T-3 schools as a place where crackheads reside getting into any ABA school is an accomplishment considering you essentially have to get above a 3.0 in undergrad, which for people considering law school does not seem that difficult, but the majority of undergraduate students do not achieve that. Even after doing well in undergrad to have a realistic shot at getting into an ABA school you need to get 150 or above on the LSAT, which requires you to do better than 50% of LSAT test takers. So getting into an ABA school is an accomplishment, but people that make it to Harvard or Yale are smarter, more motivated, or have amazing connections. Therefore, they will have more options than those that attend lower schools. If you want to practice Big Law and make some serious money then I would not recommend going to a T-4 go look at the big firms like White & Case or O'Melveny & Myers and you can see where the attorneys went to school. The majority went to top tier schools, you will find a handful of T-4 and T-3 grads, but click on attorneys that attended Harvard Law School and you will see about 100 attorneys pop up. Click on Golden Gate or Southwestern and maybe one will appear.
Your post makes me wonder, which is more difficult, to become smarter or to become more motivated?
This is, mind you, someone who's always struggled with motivation.
« on: February 11, 2010, 10:56:12 PM »
Either way, you'll wind up with a good job.
I agree that the obsession with rank borders on unhealthy, but it's not for no reason. Different schools do present significantly different job prospects. The question is how much better, and whether that difference equals a full tuition. It's silly to take Cornell full price over Georgetown full ride because of one spot in the rankings, but it's also silly to take some non-accredited school full ride over Cornell full price because of the full tuition. So somewhere between those extremes comes a point where the decision is roughly a tossup. It makes a lot of sense to try to figure out where this decision falls on that spectrum.
I recently heard that unless you attend a top 10-15 law school, that the JD is just another humanities degree. He said that many law grads just struggle to find any type of work if they aren't from the national schools.
That depends on what you mean by "that all marketable."
But JD's are certainly less the path to financial success than is commonly believed.
I see, but I think you can pick up a lot on that from the casebook, I dunno. Maybe you will overstudy, lol. I have seen previous exams for Civ Procedure from W&M, at least half of the exam is multiple choice. There is a guy on top-law-schools.com from W&M who says he never touches anything but the class notes and he has 4.0 after first year.
Multiple choice is more the exception than the rule from what I've seen.
Different strategies work for different people.
Re-reading works magic for me. After I read a textbook two times I pretty much remember it by heart. Remember not just words, but understand and can easily apply concepts. In my business school exams they usually gave us a hypothetical problem and had us apply concepts used in class to the problem. I got 3.912 in my undergrad. Arent law school exams pretty much the same (plaintiff A from CA sues defendant B from IL, who brings in third party defendant C from TX; whats the appropriate venue)? I dont understand why people keep saying that there is no guarantee to get good grades in law school. Exam questions are objective, they have to be, and if you know your shiit like nobody's business you should get an A.
Exam questions are generally not objective. They're not so much "what's the right answer" and more "what are the points of contention and what are the relative merits of the arguments on both sides?"
« on: February 10, 2010, 08:28:41 PM »
One other thing to keep in mind--according to the Princeton Review, Cornell Law students spend more hours per day studying than at any other school.
I'm guessing that Cornell Law students also spend more hours per day snowed-in than at any other school.
what is a hornbook? would class notes and reading the required textbook and required cases several times be enough for to do well in a 1L class?
Re-reading material is generally not all that useful in my opinion.