That's pretty stark. From what I gather, UT's numbers look worse than either of those.
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 - FalconJimmy
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Barack Obama and George W. Bush...both solid on blunting military dictators« on: April 04, 2011, 05:18:08 PM »
what wrong, obama not start enough wars?
Not sure if you noticed but we're in yet another undeclared war right now, with no exit plan, no clear strategy, and no bloody idea who the heck we're fighting for and who they are.
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Barack Obama and George W. Bush...both solid on blunting military dictators« on: April 04, 2011, 07:56:21 AM »
No meaningful difference between the 2. The only difference is that Obama likes to use more sensitive language and bans phrases like 'axis of evil' and 'war on terror'. Substantively, they are both 100% exactly the same thing especially with Secretary Clinton being equivalent to male private part Cheney.
I agree. We have our 3rd term of Bush. If there's a difference, I really, really don't see it, other than gay rights, (for which Obama should be applauded, IMHO). It amazes me how we can go from a guy with no brains and huge balls to a guy with huge brains and no balls and the end result is almost the identical results of leadership.
Personally, I found E&E's pretty helpful, but they shouldn't be your only source of review or completely replace the textbook.
Thanks for the response. I just finished the Torts E&E and I'm glad I did. I'm not looking to use this as my primary text. I'm just trying to start the semester with an idea of the major concepts that will be covered. I'll be doing all four, prior to the start of 1L, I think. (I have 4 classes, and a research and writing class.) If they help, they help. I don't see how they could hurt. Obviously, I'll be focusing on what the prof emphasizes once the semester starts.
Personally, I found it useful in illustrating a few concepts (maybe fewer than half a dozen) where what the law says, literally (from a layman's perspective) is totally different than what the law means in practice (or what the law means in a law school class, anyway.)
I also really, really liked the sample exam questions and the fact that several chapters were dedicated to exam taking. I can see that I'm going to focus on that to a high degree next year.
Okay, dumb 0L question, but what are the hornbooks? I saw those, but they seem to be pricey relative to the E&Es. Maybe twice as much? But I realized that it appears they're not the same thing. I hear references to "hornbook law", etc.
At this point, I just ordered the Civ Pro one. After I finish all four, I'm going to buy the LEEWS method and "getting to maybe". Are there any other books you'd recommend?
I think you'll be surprised how many schools offer scholarships. When I started this process, I was sure I'd be paying sticker price (due to low undergrad gpa), but I ended up snagging roughly a half-ride.
As for credit and being admitted to the bar, you can google, but generally, unless your actions were grossly irresponsible or negligent, merely having a low credit rating isn't necessarily an issue. Even declaring bankruptcy, depending on why, is not an issue.
« on: April 03, 2011, 05:47:57 PM »
I was recently involved in a car accident where the other person was at fault as determined by both insurance companies. They paid to fix my car already, but now I want to file a personal injury claim with the other persons insurance company without hiring a lawyer. Where can I learn the proper procedures and forms? Does any body have any sample demand letters I can use? Please help...
This isn't really an answer to your question but just some personal advice.
I deal with insurance companies and settlements every day. In addition to that, I was hit by a motorist while riding a bicycle when I was younger and sustained some injuries as a result.
Based on this experience, I will offer this: if you try to do this yourself, the insurance company will whip your ass. They have lawyers. They know the rules. They know their rights. They know what is a good settlement, what is a bad settlement and what is a fair settlement.
You don't know any of those things and they're not going to help you with any portion of your desire to get the optimal PI settlement from them.
Not only that, but the first person (and possibly the ONLY person) you will be dealing with is an adjuster. They're not that versed in the law. They don't know all that much about this. They DO know that they're measured on their average cost of claims and how long it takes to settle. So, they don't know enough to settle PI correctly, and their only incentive is to have measurements that look good to their boss. Draw your own conclusions about that. Me? I'd be thinking that their primary motivation will be to pay as little as possible.
The insurance company was so unreasonable with me in my accident that I ended up hiring a PI attorney who got me a much, much bigger settlement than anything I would have expected. It was settled without having to go to trial, so the insurance company obviously felt it wasn't that disadvantageous to them.
People may think little of PI attorneys, but frankly, I think they have their place. The insurance company has almost all the information and all the expertise on their side and they do this every day for a living. You, on the other hand are going to try and take them on based on free advice you're asking for over the internet.
Just think about that for a moment.
« on: April 03, 2011, 05:41:55 PM »
Hmm alright so I am in a somewhat similar situation.
Kinda depends on what you want. If you want a top score to get into a top university or to get a top scholarship, maybe the prep courses are worth it.
Personally, I have always done best when I can study material on my own. The cost of the powerscore books is microscopic compared to the cost of a prep class.
If all you're trying to do is "get in" and the school isn't that tough to get into, I'd say just stick with powerscore. (Obviously, a lot of factors here, so consider this very general guidance.)
However, if you really, really need a huge LSAT score, maybe the cost of a prep class will be worth it for you. Heck, the difference between a half ride and full ride for one year, alone, more than justifies the cost of a prep class.
I don't think admissions committees give much thought to undergrad major. Otherwise, they'd be giving guidance like, "major in X, not in Y."
As for the LSAT, I had no trouble with any of the sections because they were all essentially reading comprehension, except for the logic games.
I did okay, but could have done much better if I'd prepared. If I were doing it all over again, I'd buy the powerscore logic games bible and work through it, first. I probably could have raised my score by 15 points or so if I had.
I think with pretty much any LSAT score, you're likely to gain admission. Best of luck.
« on: April 03, 2011, 08:30:16 AM »
I would advise fellow forum members to be exceedingly careful about dispensing legal advice if you are not yet admitted to the bar. Perhaps it'd never happen, but you'd be dancing dangerously close to practicing law without a license.
Then you have nothing to fear. Hence the whole "if you are not yet admitted to the bar" thing. But this scenario doesn't appear to be hypothetical.
The problem is that, when this inevitably gets challenged (as it already did in Baake) in 25 years, it will lose and go away. You're discriminating on the basis of race. The court in Baake explicitly said that this won't be okay in 25 years. It won't be around too much longer.
Grutter v. Bollinger made it very clear that the constitutional basis for AA is absolutely not there. The strict scrutiny standard is, at least in my opinion, a travesty of justice. When used, it seems like as often as not, it's used to do something very, very bad. (For instance, the internment of Japanese Americans.)
I thought the Supreme Court really punted in the Bollinger decision. They were defending the indefensible: granting favors based on race is simply unconstitutional regardless of motive. Also, rather insidiously, the ruling essentially extended the practice for another 25 years due to the language of the majority decision.
I was waiting to hear the constitutional arguments regarding affirmative action back in 2003, and basically, the majority opinion said that affirmative action is clearly and blatantly unconstitutional, but they like it, so it's going to be the law of the land for at least another quarter century. Absolutely infuriating. A true picture of how sometimes the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court have zero basis in the law and it's just a personal opinion that they are going to impose, even though they know the opinion is contrary to all the rules of a free and fair society.