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 - Evolve
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  10 11 12
« on: March 05, 2006, 11:15:21 PM »
Excluding tier 1 schools, I would say that someone in the top 10% would almost always be viewed better than someone in the bottom 10% regardless of their school. The way I look at the different tiers is, first, on a sliding percentage scale (ie. top 50% in T2 = top 25% in T3 = top 10% in T4) and, second, as a shrinking area of influence (ie. T1 can go pretty much anywhere to work, T2 needs to look more regionally, T3 needs to look more within state, and T4 needs to look more within the city). Neither of these ways of looking at the tiers is exactly right (even more so since many professionals disavow the tier system all together), but I have found them to be a useful way of evaluating schools.
With CUNY and Rutgers I think its safe to say that Rutgers is going to give you more options in regards to what and where you practice. However, if you already have a good idea of those things then CUNY might be better if it fits the mold for what you want. For getting a job in NYC I don't think either school really has a leg up on the other. For public interest I think CUNY has an edge. For cost it would appear that CUNY has an edge in your case. On average Rutgers graduate make more money, but whether that has to do with where they went or what they practice I can't say. By looking at the information you have given here about what you are interested in, I would say CUNY is pry the better choice. What I will say for Rutgers is that IMHO it is a better and more prestigious school at large and it would afford you more opportunities outside of the specific area of interest you've stated.
« on: March 05, 2006, 04:07:39 PM »
Personally, I like Rutgers better... hence its one of the places I'm considering. That being said though, if you are honestly planning on living at home and commuting there everyday then CUNY may be a better choice. Law school is a lot of work already without having to spend that much time in transit every single day. I can also tell you that, for me, that kind of commute is something that would put my bad days over the top into horrible ones.
Rutgers will give you more options, but CUNY is not a bad school and you will have a fair amount of options there as well. What you need to ask yourself is what you want out of law school. If you are really interested in public interest, want to live at home, and want to work in the NYC area then I would go with CUNY. On the other hand, going to Rutgers does not preclude any of those things from happening its just doesn't fit the mold quite as well.
Good luck in your decision.
« on: March 02, 2006, 12:36:41 AM »
I would also think that some lower tier schools might defer late in the game because a lot of the people they accept may end up going to higher ranked schools. Just a thought...
« on: February 27, 2006, 01:49:57 AM »
« on: February 23, 2006, 05:44:05 PM »
Those are all great schools Julie, congratulations. The important thing is being happy. From my vague understanding of your situation I would vote for Texas. Its quite prestigious, highly ranked, and in the warm and friendly south. UNC is also a quality program and depending on the money you shouldn't worry about going there if you want to get out of NYC. If you attend any of those schools you should have a profitable and prestigious career plus you should have some decent options about where you want to practice available as well. As you said they all have above average corporate law programs and if the NE isn't for you then go make big bucks in a climate where you can see yourself spending your years. Just remember that not being happy with your surroundings is one of the primary reasons people do poorly in school at any level. It effects them. Honestly, it sounds like you already know what you want to do but are looking for reassurance. I'll tell you up front that not a one of those schools is a poor choice so you don't need to worry about making a "wrong choice". Good luck and best wishes.
« on: February 23, 2006, 05:27:40 PM »
Its my understanding that Howard is a pretty decent law program that merely looks to factors other than GPA/LSAT in terms of importance. They are competitively strong and have excellent recruitment as well. That being said, do you think that it would be harder for non-URMs to gain admittance to HUCL? Furthermore, if admitted do you think it would be harder for non-URMs to make law review? I suppose the most important question would be, if a non-URM were to attend HUCL and graduate near the top of the class would they get the same attention from top recruiters or do recruiters go to HUCL specifically to find quality black lawyers?
« on: February 23, 2006, 03:43:07 PM »
skin color, to googler, is a compensatory factor, which implies that there is a gap between the non-URM and the URM, a gap in which the non-URM has the higher status and the URM uses AA to "catch up." does that not support the idea that a non-URM has an advantage even before the URM is supposedly "given" one?
I completely agree. AA serves a very important role in that it is meant to fill an advantage gap. But I want to be clear that being an URM alone is not an advantage gap, being a URM is merely an over simplified generalization about groups that have historically been disadvantaged. This is where I feel HippieLawChick's point is extremely valuable. Being lower class is the real disadvantage and while traditionally being an URM was a fairly safe indicator of being lower class, today it merely perpetuates a racist myth and IMO is counterproductive in fighting real racism.
Again, if it is true that URMs tend to outperform LSAT scores in law school then the system is fair. However, the LSAT ought to be adjusted in such a manner as to make it a better indicator of URM success. Not doing so leaves open speculations like these about people getting in because they are black/latino. Furthermore, preference should be given based on family income, area of living, family academic history, and other overcoming-the-odds style variables instead of having them lumped into one check box on a test asking if you are an URM.
Finally, I again want to comment on magnumalv's "I got in because I'm white" argument. I'm sorry, but while I see your point it is not really applicable to the argument at hand. While my being white did shape my development so did being short, skinny, blue eyed, an only child, a pet owner, etc. Every minor detail in my life has effected my development and led me to the advantages and disadvantages I've had today. Adcoms really could care less about those factors as their job is to infer my personality (and in that my development) through several key factors including my LSAT, my GPA, my LORs, my personal statement, etc. My whiteness and the experiences that have come with that do not cross an adcoms mind except to say that I'm NOT a URM. While in the vast scheme of things magnumalv is right and I do owe an indeterminate amount of who I am and what I achieve to being white, in the vacuum of admissions decisions being white or asian is not a factor while being an URM is.
« on: February 23, 2006, 02:36:58 PM »
I didn't say there were no non-URM's who got below the 25th percentile. I said there were very few who got TEN POINTS below like you posited.
I'm sure if I made an argument that as many whites got in with 10 points below the median as blacks (which is likely to be true, just because of the numbers of Non-URMs at elite schools who score below the median) you'd find another reason to defend the performance of white students. For your theory to be true, every black people at elite schools would have to score 10 points below the median and every white student who scored belong the 25 percent median had LSAT scores exactly at the 25 percent median. I say that's statisically impossible because then the 25 percent median would be lower than published.
You are slightly misunderstanding his argument. For it to be true every black person at elite schools would not have to have scores 10 points below the median. First of all, when you say bottom 25% you are essentially counting it as 25%. In fact, 10 points below the median is well below the 25% line anywhere. It would most likely be bottom 5%. Now, all Googler is trying to say is that a URM with a score 10 or more points below the median is more likely to get in than a Caucasian or Asian American with the same scores. At that point one ought to give credit where credit is due and the URM should admit that was why they got accepted. Also, the inverse "getting in because of being an overrepresented majority" argument floating around here is flawed. It is the equivalent of a 180/2.5 splitter saying he got accepted to NYU because of his GPA. Googler's point is valid as long as we are a) only looking at LSAT scores and URM status and b) maintain that the two are not related. The only valid argument against his, in the thread, is that URMs consistantly outperform their LSAT scores once in law school and therefore LSAT scores should not be weighted as heavily for them in admissions decisions. While I have never seen any studies on this, I can say that if it is true then there is a legitimate and merit-based reason why URMs shouldn't have to "fess up" to getting into law schools because of their status.
« on: February 21, 2006, 04:53:20 PM »
« on: February 21, 2006, 04:50:29 PM »
Hey! I didn't get a Harumph outta that guy
I'm watching you!
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  10 11 12