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
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 37
« on: September 04, 2010, 09:43:18 AM »
Okay and lets say you could not get into a top 10 school for anything.
And at what point did I strike you as someone who's T10 or bust? Just because someone thinks that your assessment of post-law school life is too rosy doesn't mean that they're saying that.
I wouldn't think about my decisions exclusively in terms of "what I want." Let's just put it that way.
« on: September 04, 2010, 09:25:31 AM »
I don't think thats a fair analogy. I think the point is don't let others define success for you. some people r t14 or bust because they assume people have the sames goal as them. Yes I want to earn a nice salary but I don't need a designer degree to do so. Yes it'll be harder to land a job interview but not impossible. I think bigs point is to be realistic.
Just because you shouldn't let other people define success for you doesn't mean that there aren't certain outcomes that are not, objectively speaking, failures. In the case of bungie jumping, if you've miscalculated and you hit the bottom of that gorge at full speed, that's failure. If after school you are $200k in debt and unemployed, that's failure (and I'm not saying this is what happens automatically when you go to T3/T4, but it's something that happens to people sometimes). My goal isn't to say, "you shouldn't got to law school unloess you're likely to get biglaw"; it's to point out that in general
, the outcomes that result from law school are far less positive than conventional (lay) wisdom tells us that they are.
And I don't mean to be a downer here, or to repeat the T10 or bust theme. For the record, I have friends who went to T3/4 and did pretty well for themselves, and I have friends who went to T10 schools who ended up doing poorly for themselves. So it's not just school ranking that matters. Still, best to go in with eyes wide open.
« on: September 03, 2010, 07:15:36 AM »
If a woman lies and says she is on birth control and a man gets her pregnant (not a teenager), should he have known better and taken precautions anyway? Or is it all the woman's fault for tricking him? What do you think?
Are we talking about placing moral blame or shifting responsibility for costs, e.g. using this as a basis for denying child support? If the latter, I would say that we should continue to place responsibility on the man because otherwise it would make every effort to get child support far more difficult than it needs to be.
I would say something about the man being the least cost avoider, but I can't think of how that would work at the moment.
« on: September 03, 2010, 07:02:02 AM »
Let me ask you this White Rabbit, I assume you enjoy the legal profession. What would you have done if you got a 155 on the LSAT. Lets you tried your ass off and 155 was the best you could do, would you have still gone to law school?
Frankly, I probably would not have. I like working as a lawyer fine enough, but I don't have
to be a lawyer. I could have and would have found something else to do with my life.
« on: September 03, 2010, 07:00:56 AM »
So it's kind of like this:
Bigs and White Rabbit are walking across a bridge over a gorge when they see Smartandunique standing on the railing with a bungie cord tied to her waist.
Smartandunique: "Should I jump?"
Bigs: "You should if you want to! It'll be awesome!"
White Rabbit: "That looks dangerous. Are you sure you measured the cord properly?"
Bigs: "People of your ilk who have never gone bungie jumping are out of line giving advice!"
White Rabit: "Um, huh?"
« on: September 02, 2010, 05:45:16 AM »
Yes that is somewhat correct, but that is true of any form of education. The world is getting more and more competitive, law school is outrageously priced, but you can make it up. You need to realize that education is a LONG TERM investment odds are if you go to a tier 3/4 you may start out making only 50k, which when faced with a 100k loan accruing interest seems sh***y. However, if you are a halfway competent attorney in a few years you will be more experienced and be paid more generally.
Sometimes I feel like I just go around this board disagreeing with bigs, but somebody's got to do it.
Thinking of 50k a year as a worst case scenario is horribly wrong. You may start out making nothing.
Plenty of people who are competent but just didn't get their foot in the door end up working contract attorney jobs (doc review) where regardless of number of years of experience, you get paid the same amount and have few opportunities for professional advancement.
Bigs paints an entirely too rosy picture of things.
Yes the debt is an issue, but believe it or not it is a GLOBAL recession and jobs are and will always be hard to come by in any field.
The problems with employment for graduates of lower-tiered law schools existed long before the current recession. Even during the boom, it was an uphill battle.
It sounds like you have the right attidue, and if you want to practice law go to law school.
This is like saying, "if you want to fly go ahead and jump out that window." OP, I'm not saying DON'T go to law school. Just think through whether or not it's a smart decision. Even if you're competent and hard-working and know what it is to struggle, that doesn't make handling a massive debt load on minimal income any easier to handle. Bigs is correct to an extent that the problems with law school costs are shared with all types of education. That's because it's a problem for all types of education, not because it's not a problem anywhere. Law school is probably just the worst example.
In terms of your actual question about the Master of Jurisprudence, I've never heard of it being of practical use anywhere. I would look into the JD only, and pursue it if after collecting all necessary information, it makes sense from every angle.
« on: September 02, 2010, 05:39:30 AM »
not to keep an old thread alive, but I chose ONU law. I did the summer starter program and did very well.
Glad to hear it's working out thus far. Keep up the good work.
« on: September 02, 2010, 05:35:25 AM »
In San Francisco Courts they see each other. There are people from every single ABA school here and CBA schools as well. They all litigate against each other, since they are lawyers after all. I have seen about 100 trials in the last year and attorney's school never comes up, but out of curiosity I look the lawyers up on the California Bar website to see what school they went to. So far I have seen people from schools as unknown as University of West Los Angeles School of law up to schools like Harvard. San Francisco is a destination for a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds and if they are lawyers they can and do end up in court against eachother.
Look, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm asking where it happens with regularity. Biglaw types generally go up against other biglaw types, so the Harvard alumni are generally facing off against each other (or other top school grads). Also for the record, I'm not saying that Cooley alumni never beat Harvard alumni at trial; I'm asking where they see each other enough that you can see a trend.
In general though, I agree that reputation in trial comes in not through school name.
« on: August 31, 2010, 11:25:47 PM »
I recently decided to take the December LSAT instead of the October LSAT. I'm gathering application information on several T14 schools, and now I'm starting to wonder if I'm shooting myself in the foot by taking the test so late. On one hand, I'll have much more time to prepare, which I believe is a good thing. On the other hand, several of the schools I'm looking at have rolling admissions and tell prospective students to apply as soon as possible. I guess it's something of a moot point now, because there's likely no way I'll be taking the October LSAT at this point, but I was just wondering if people felt they were hampered in the past by taking the December LSAT.
My second question is in regards to the role of graduate school GPA in law school admissions. I've heard several different opinions/experiences on this, and I figure that it might differ from school to school. I'm very interested in this because, while my undergrad GPA was respectable (3.63), my MA GPA ended up being over 20 points higher (3.88). Having some idea of how grad school GPA will be considered will hopefully give me a better idea of what to expect from the application process.
Thanks in advance for any information anyone can pass on!
I didn't take the December LSAT, but with regard to graduate GPA, I've never heard of it being taken into serious consideration anywhere. LSAT and undergraduate GPA are what matter.
« on: August 31, 2010, 05:44:24 AM »
I have seen it happen first hand. Student's from every law school have been in court opposing each other and when there is an actual case pending the name of your law school means jack. The judge does not say well I believe this girl is lying about being raped because defense counsel went to Harvard. If you get a case to trial the last thing on anyone's mind is what law school the other attorney went to.
This doesn't answer my question.
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 37