|
|
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 - RootBrewskies
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18
51
« on: March 27, 2006, 03:20:17 PM »
how is it possible that west law and lexis are still in business? doesnt it seem like there would be a company out there that could offer the same service as them for free? if you look at the online databases that are available now for free im sure that a legal search engine would not be so much larger than them that it would make it impossible to run without charging 100 dollars a search.
is there some reason for this? doesnt it just seem like west law or lexis could operate just like any other online database that is free, and just have a few adds on it? i mean if every lawyer and law student across the country is accessing the site, that is an enourmous amount of people that would be viewing adds.
obviously my logic is off or there would be a free service, but why is it that there is not?
52
« on: March 27, 2006, 02:40:25 PM »
so i've looked around a little bit and found some people talking about WestLaw and saying that it costs so much to use. I guess it doesnt matter to me now but I was wondering if people knew how schools and law firms use this and how they pay for it. Do schools get some type of discount using the service? also how do firms control the cost of their employees searches.
i'm just used to getting familar with computer systems by trial and error and simply using them for a good while until i understand the ins and outs of them. however, now that ive heard that westlaw searches can cost hundred(s) of dollars for a single search i doubt that i will be permitted to simply spend some time getting familar with the system.
how exactly does it work?
53
« on: March 27, 2006, 02:22:33 PM »
ive taken online classes. they are utterly worthless.
technology is a great tool for the classroom. it is not able to replace a classroom.
there is a reason you have to go to law school. if the ABA approves online law schools it might as well just eliminate the requirement to go to law school. you could just self study and then take the bar, because thats what online law schools are essentially doing.
whats next after online law schools? i can hear the radio and tv adds already. "send in $59.99 for your four week law school audio tape. with these tapes you'll be ready to pass the bar in no time. in the time it takes you to commute to work each month, just pop in the tape and you'll be ready for the bar in no time."
there is a reason that online universities dont get respect in the job market and to put law schools online will only do the same thing.
im not saying that the non-ABA schools in cali are bad. if thats what people want to do then go for it, but i really cant ever see myself saying that online law schools are a good idea.
maybe some day when we have super super fast internet connections and could have seamless streaming video we could have some type of online law class situation but even that wouldnt be effective.
at some point we have to understand that technology is a good tool for us but not the answer to everything. at some point we have to face the fact that a computer cant teach us everything.
54
« on: March 27, 2006, 02:09:44 PM »
i support the notion of not allowing online ABA approved law schools to open up. i dont think there should be online law schools for a few reasons.
first of all i dont think it would flood the market with lawyers because i dont think that anyone (or barely anyone) who went to an online law school would pass the bar. more importantly though, i dont want traditional law schools to see online learning as a way to cash in (in the same way they have in undergrad and some grad school levels). ive unfortunately been forced to take some online classes and they have been utterly worthless. i could not imagine taking them for law school and expect to perform as well.
i also dont think that online law schools are a good idea because i think that being an attorney is a profession that is not suited for everyone. there is a reason that law school is competitive for entry and a reason that classes at schools are small. if online law schools open up the overall value of a JD would go down and the time honored profession would be devalued.
that being said, i support technological integration into classrooms but i do not think that technology can replace the classroom.
law school is not a weeknight get training in medical assistant school. it is hard work with competitive entry and students, this is a negative aspect of law school, this is why the country is essentially run by lawyers. its the best of the best and thats how it should stay.
55
« on: March 06, 2006, 12:57:34 AM »
hey, i was wondering if anyone is thinking about starting up their own one man or two man practice. i was wondering what exactly is involved in this and how successful it is for people? do most of these little practices survive or are they driven out by larger firms? it seems like you would have more freedom and would be able to control your life and what cases you would like to take more in this situation however you obviously would have a hard time competing with the large firms. i was wondering if anyone is thinking about this, or knows about how exactly people go about it, what their experiences have been in doing it, and how successful you can be (not that money is that important but u need to survive and live a little).
56
« on: March 04, 2006, 04:57:50 PM »
this thread has become pointless because of the gross over exageration that is going on. first of all, the difference between #1 and #2 is not going to be so spread apart that it is going to matter that greatly. obvioulsy #1 looks better on a resume than #2 but most law firms arent going to hire someone based simply on rank alone. if #1 and #2 show up for the same job its probably going to come down to the interview, not their GPA.
obviously #1 at harvard counts for more than #1 at cooley or most other schools, simply due to the reputation of the school.
the arguement that i am giving is that with the way that law school works and how selective it has become in recent years, most schools are going to find themselves with a group of students that will before equally, and some that will excell and some that will fall behind. this is why a curve shouldnt be neccessary. it should happen naturally. students can still be ranked against one another, but why should it be neccessary for someone to receive a C or D if they are performing at a B level? simply because of the curve? that doesnt make sense.
grade students and give them the grade they deserve, the class ranking will show where students stand in their class, GPA doesnt show that anyway. GPA should be used to show at what level your performing, class rank should be to show how you are performing in comparison to everyone else. why there are curves simply doesnt make sense.
it only functions to hurt the job prospects of students at schools with difficult curves, and that is a school purposely putting its students at a disadvantage.
57
« on: March 03, 2006, 01:36:31 AM »
haha, this cooley vs. harvard stuff is getting out of hand and funny.
anyway, the thread was initially about how GPA is not neccessary in law school. undergrad is a different story for a number of reasons, but we arent arguing whether the LSAT is a good indicator of law school perfermance or whether undergrad GPA is a good indicator either. what i was trying to say is that regardless of how u got to law school, once your there law school GPA becomes fairly worthless as a result of curves.
they really just dont make much sense. a class should distribute itsself evenly as a natural result of the class. if it doesnt and students perform equally, they should be graded equally. if you have a class of 10 students and they are all some type of super genius students, it doesnt make sense to fail any of them, and vice versa if u have a class of idiots they should all fail. there shouldnt be a distribution between them with mandatory A's, B's, C's, etc.
58
« on: March 02, 2006, 11:27:15 PM »
give the money to the stripper. its a funnier ending.
true, but america doesn't usually go with funnier endings, unless it's in its funny moments ..
anna nicole in the supreme court? thats not a funny moment? better believe i get a chuckle out of it when i hear legitimate reporters and analyists talking about it.
true, if you see it that way, but don't you think it's not that funny to see big shots full of *&^% (oops, sorry, I meant money) being milked by whores that they were supposed to treat 'em up to the end like whores, and not like ladies?
i think its better that the old man got what he wanted, the whore got what she wanted. and the family isnt getting anything. odds are the family is a bunch of crapfaces, if the old man hated them enough to give all his money to a ho. or they could just declere the trial ridiculous and give the money to a charity.
59
« on: March 02, 2006, 11:23:30 PM »
yea, i realize the lsat is not a very good indicator of who is going to be an excellent student, but the truth is that there are very few students at harvard or any of the top schools that dont have excellent academic resumes.
there may be some odd balls with the 3.0 and the 180 but for hte most part its 3.8's and 175's or something to that extent.
lets stop arguing over whether or not harvard is a good school. we know it is. cooley is a fine school too, but they arent attracking the same students.
60
« on: March 02, 2006, 10:14:56 PM »
i cant say from personal experience. i dont go to RWU. i visited it as a prospective student and my friend goes there for undergrad. the setting is beautiful, the law school building itself is nice, but nothing to brag about. the students i talked to seemed to like it. they say that since they are the only school in RI job prospects are good for RI, but in reality you have to think that your competing against Boston schools as well. The odds of getting a Boston job are probably slim but not impossible. providence or the surrounding small RI towns is more likely. its a nice area, if you like that new england feel. bristol is small but nice.
personally i thought the school was a good setting for undergrad, and i would consider it for that, but for law school, it wasnt for me. i really didnt see myself settling down in a small RI town. Providence is nice and i could definately be there, but the school just wasnt a great fit for me.
it does have some unique programs like maritime law. all in all i would give it a positive review but a law school has to match your personality and where u see yourself in the future. RWU didnt for me, but maybe it will for you.
good luck.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18
|
Discussion
Resources