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 - the white rabbit

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 36
91
Canadian Law Students / Re: undergraduate institution
« on: July 10, 2010, 07:55:29 AM »
I'm not saying anything Morten hasn't already said, but schools at the top of the food chain don't care so much about their ranking and more about putting together a good law school class.  Good grades in underwater basketweaving will not impress in that regard.

So I guess it comes down to where in the food chain an applicant is targeting.

92
Law School Admissions / Re: 175, 3.3, non-URM. Chances @ T14?
« on: July 10, 2010, 07:50:37 AM »
Title sort of says it all. 175, 3.3 LSAC GPA.

Not a URM or non-traditional student or foreign student.

Mediocre softs. Some leadership positions on campus. Enough work experience to fill a resume.

Average to good LORs (none from T14 alumni).

Trying to decide where/if to ED/EA. Thoughts? Also, chances @ T14, in general?

Thanks!

I'd say your chances of getting in somewhere Georgetown or higher is pretty good, though you're probably not going to make it above UPenn.  I'd say everything below HYS is worth shooting for though.

ED only if you're sure where you want to go.  EA always.  (EA is non-binding and ED is binding, right?  That's how I remember it.)

93
I think that is kind of messed up to layoff people instead of reducing pay rates from 160,000-128,000 since that is what the associates wanted.

Why?  A pay cut would benefit most the associates most likely to be laid off, and it would probably harm the firm in terms of being able to recruit.

More to the point, it doesn't make the big firm especially bad compared to plenty of other employers in other industries.

94
I know that many of your want to work in Big Law. You aspire to a top T14 school where you think you will have a great career and hopefully earn enough to pay for those law school debts. Let me share a recent story
that I heard yesterday.

I was sitting on the plane next to a gal who attended University of Taxas and worked for a large law firm in Texas. The law firm have had already two rounds of layoffs.
Most of those layed off were those that didn't meet the budgetary goals of 45 chargable hours per week. Be advised that to get 45 chargable hours, you really need to work at least 60 hours per week or more.

They were going to have another big round of layoffs when the staff voted en masse to allow a 20% pay cut if the firm would not lay anyone else off.Since the starting
salary for new lawyers was $160,000, they could still live on $128,000.

The partners thought about this and rejected the staff's proposal as being the result of "loser mentality." If you want to work in Big Law, you should at least know
what you are getting into for the rest of your life! Also, understand, my purpose for this post is NOT to talk you out of working for Big Law or even becoming a lawyer. That isn't my business. I just want everyone to be aware of the environment that they are getting into.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly was so negative about the environment.  You think the fact that the firm would rather have layoffs than pay cuts is a problem?

95
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« on: June 29, 2010, 03:03:29 AM »
In regards to the return investment etc it is very different for people that go to GGU they do not have the same expectations as a Harvard Grad does.

Expectations have no effect on the return on investment.  Essentially what you're saying is, even if something looks like a bad investment, you should buy it anyway if you derive satisfaction from just owning that investment.  That's fine and well if you happen to have more money than you know what to do with.  Otherwise, it's not a great idea.

96
I'm really struggling with this, and I'm sure I won't come across as really eloquent, but I was hoping someone might help me with a question I have. Basically, I took the LSAT last year and got a score in the 170's (with a 3.9 gpa), did the usual thing, blanketed most of the Top 14. However, because of my financial situation, my close connection to DC, and just my plain desire to NOT go into debt, I also applied to the GW early decision/full ride program. So long story short, I got into the program, and am headed to GW in the fall.

So I have been reading alot of the "t14 or bust" language here and on other sites. The top school I got into was columbia (but realistically there was no way i could afford to pay full tuition and live in NYC), and i got good offers to go to schools like UVA/Mich/Penn with ~20k scolarships. My question is, how big a hole did I put myself in by committing to the GW program and not attending a T10 school?

I do not believe I want to do BigLaw (although, to be totally honest, I cannot say for certain that I want/do not want to do ANYTHING really), but I am very interested in litigation (although, again, I admit not knowing what exact specialty I'll wind up in).

Anyway, sorry to ramble, but I know that for BigLaw and academia, etc, it's a huge hit not coming from a T10, but what if I do well at GW (I won't play the % game, because I know there are just as many intelligent motivated students at GW as there are at Columbia), what would my job prospects look like coming back? Do you think I made a really poor decision, or its justifiable considering the finances and my comfort level with the city?

Thanks in advance!

Are there conditions on the scholarship?  If not, I don't think it's a bad decision.  I have friends who are $200k in the hole.  Even coming out of a very top school, that's an enormous amount of debt to shoulder.  I probably would have come out the other way, but that's just me.

97
It gets me to the point(and it pains me that you can't seem to grasp this) that I am in lawschool, so when someone used to be, their information is more outdated. So, when someone makes the weakass argument "but they are in a firm" that dosn't apply to lawschool at all. In fact the more accomplisments one has, the farther away from lawschool they become(unless a prof) and the less relevant their info to the actual day to day routine of a lawstudent becomes. Simple, very simple.

All fine and good except that it only gets you as far as "their information is older."  That doesn't necessarily mean that their information is more outdated, because you haven't established that the information that applies to law school changes meaningfully.  If things have remained the same, then their information is older but not necessarily outdated.  Furthermore, they can just come back and argue that their information is informed by perspective on the experience of law school as a whole.  You haven't established that being closer in time to an experience gives you a better understanding of it.

I think I told you at one point that you try to do a lot with a little.  Here, again.  ;)

98
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« on: June 28, 2010, 10:26:00 PM »
Secondly, in the long run all lawyers will benefit from all these schools pumping out law school graduates year after year. There will be more and more  lawsuits (and need for legal services) and that results in lawyers getting paid.

At the risk (okay, certainty) of sounding preachy, I'd like to say that this is a terrible attitude to have.  As a lawyer, you're supposed to be looking out for your clients.  Personally, I'd rather make less money if it meant my clients had to deal with fewer frivolous lawsuits.

To change the subject, how do I upload an avatar?  It's been surprisingly difficult.

99
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« on: June 28, 2010, 10:23:10 PM »
Big pimpin Bigs.... man you got to shorten them paragraphs.

I whole-heartedly agree.

100
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« on: June 28, 2010, 10:21:55 PM »
On the other hand someone who goes to Stanford Undergrad and Harvard Law School really should not be speculating on how things will turn out a tier 4.

This is like saying that people who have never owned stock in a particular company should not evaluate the investment value of that particular stock.  You can crunch the numbers without having ever attended a particular school.  Whether or not I ever attended any particular school, I can evaluate the tuition versus the expected income with a degree from that school.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 36