I got a 120, I rejected that and they uped it to a 164. Nice people over there.
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 - pacelaw2013
« on: July 29, 2010, 03:43:45 PM »
they better choose carefully the words they use because that could be considered extortion or blackmail, possibly. It is sleazy- IMHO
I don't know man, you are really pushing it here. To say it is sleazy, ok, fair assesment and at least that is up for debate, but to say its blackmail? Extortion? You are really pushing it. Saying things like that almost defeats your entire argument. You can't be serious, can you?
« on: July 28, 2010, 02:47:55 PM »
Some people could get into an ABA school, but they have other issues. For example the legally blind guy who got a 173 on his LSAT could have gotten into some elite schools.
Yes, but for everyone one of those, there are 100 that did poorly on the LSAT, and wanted badly for law to be thier field so they went to that school chasing a dream. I am not against that, but I am saying that those schools are flat out worse. Its not much of an argument. His options are very limited now, for instance, lets say his wife gets a great promotion to Boston, and they decide to move. His law career is now over. He is not a member or even eligible to sit at the Massachusetts bar.
I love stories where somebody works thier way through a disablility, and that mans story is great. However, no, not everyone can have a 4.0 and a 180. But people with a 2.0 and a 130 shouldn't be in law school, plain and simple. There needs to be a cutoff to make lawyers have any legitamcy. Now if a school takes a chance on those numbers (ABA school), then power to the person, they must have impressive factors, however, in general they will not be accepted. Those are (generally) the people that go to those regional schools. Again, I am not saying there is no chance to make it, statistically its 30% for most schools. Thats not job placement, that bar passage. Then you are limited in the states in which you can practice.
The facts are the facts, non ABA schools are worse, really no argument for the contrary, if for no other reason that the fact that you can not sit at most bars. Not everyone that goes there will fail, but for every feel good story, are 50 that are upset with the fact that they even went to law school.
Sure, some feel that way at ABA schools too...but its not even comperable to people that would feel that at the regional level.
« on: July 28, 2010, 12:36:51 PM »
True the reality is if you go to law school and don't pass the bar your J.D. is almost useless. The ABA - regulates the bar and makes sure any ABA school they accredit is capable of having graduates pass the bar at a high rate. It is not a perfect system, but it is better to have to go through some kind of regulations etc to become a certified to appear in court and be a "Real" lawyer.
I know we both share the same opinion on low ranked ABA schools, that they are still ABA schools and are of good quality. But it is very rare for the student to come through only a regionaly accredited law school to make a huge impact, and I do feel that it is because of a lesser quality education. If the school was a good school, it would be accredited. The ABA has minimum guidelines that are set forth that determine if the school will be accredited. If you can not make the cut, it is because you can not meet MINIMUM guidelines. It is set to protect students who should not be law students from being screwed by a school like the California School of Law that requires a transcipt (just to look official) and a down payment and your in! There are too many degree factories out there that are not ABA, and unfortunatly, there are not enough jobs for ABA schools, never mind regionally acredited.
I don't want to sound cold saying law isn't for everyone, but its not. Whether you go to Harvard or Cooley, you are recieving an education that the ABA deems as satisfactory to the future of the field, however, if you go to a regionally accredited school, you need to recieve a waiver to sit at the bar (and it is usually only a few state bars you can sit at). The ABA protects you from scams, and most nonABA schools are scams.
You CAN go there and do well for yourself, I am not delusional. There are intelligent people that go there, but very few lawyers go there. Don't equate being a lawyer with intelligence, its not always about that. If you have a job lined up that requires to practice only in one state and its perhaps your brother's firm, sure, it might be a good investment (even though most operate on a C scale in order to prevent going a year then transfering), but overall, they are just poor investments.
I would say (though you might not need to listen to me) that unless its an ABA school, it is not worth it.
« on: July 28, 2010, 07:35:43 AM »
Oh, and by the way the ABA was sued by a school (Massachusetts School of Law) and won. The fact is, especially with law, you do need a regulatory body. Medicine needs one to keep away hack doctors, and the law needs one to keep out hack lawyers.
Law is one of those things where almost everyone in undergrad thinks they can do well in and master (you need not look past BLaw 1 where students argue rediculous points with the teacher). The problem is, not everyone can. Nor SHOULD everyone practice law.
In order for lawyers to be beleived there needs to be some sort of prestige to the title, otherwise, everyone will just do it themselves. If everyone who wants to go to law school is allowed, it turns into a little more prestigous than a community college. Not saying anything against CCs, but law schools are at a different level. Can you imagine, Bunker Hill Community College School of Law?
The bar tests MINIMAL skills. Why allow this less fortunate students to pay 10K-15K a year for a hack law school like we see in California that have 10-15% bar passage rates. Even Massachusetts school of law is somewhere in the 30% range according to a former teacher of mine that went there. Is that justified?
These minimums are there for a reason, its not elitists trying to keep people out, rather than to only allow the serious canidates in.
« on: July 27, 2010, 12:57:15 PM »
Wow, I don't want to come off as one of those who says you can't do it, but I mean, 129 to 170 is pretty tough. It would be more reasonable to expect perhaps mid 140's? I don't want to say don't try, but to expect a 170 is just setting yourself up for failure.
Take some classes at Kaplan or something like that. I liked the way Kaplan worked for me. But even the best systems only state toping out at a 10 point increase. Honestly I would think long and hard if law school is right for you. I hate to be that "elitist" because I do feel that every law school is at least decent. But I mean, 129 is low.
What was your undergrad GPA, that would say a lot to what score you would need.
Just realize that even LSAT classes are very expensive, and may not be the best investment for you.
I am sorry if its not what you wanted to hear, or if it came off harsh, not intended. Just good luck if you decide to pursue it, and hopefully you are happy where you end up.
« on: July 27, 2010, 12:47:23 PM »
It seems there is a full fledged imitator. Someday you will have your own personality...
Agreed, the imitator is not even funny, which is the real crime.
« on: July 27, 2010, 07:19:03 AM »
If a sonofpickle is in fact real which is highly unlikely and for humanities sakes I hope he is not. He would definitely not have had any type of sexual interaction either gay or straight... Clearly he is above meaningless sexual interaction and he could not be either gay or straight he has reached intellectual nirvana and can't be bothered with peasantries of sexuality. Maybe he will have to procreate and spread his genius at some point, but that will be the only sexual interaction he will ever have.
Oh my god, SOP is George Costanza!
I don't think that he's saying that he's living off of dividends. If it really is dividends that's he's living on, then yeah he's full of poo. For example, I have some shares of a decent stock, and I get dividend checks every couple of months for a little under $2. It would take a lot of stock to make a decent living that way. I'm assuming that what SOP is saying is that he tries to buy stocks low and sell them when they are higher, which can earn significantly more money.
SOP said that he made more in dividends alone than they make per year. I used federal minimum wage, most states are significantly higher. He may make more other than that, but in order to make that much in dividends, he would need a minimum of almost 300,000 in the stock market. This from a person who had already stated that he didn't have a job before.