Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - loki13

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33

I wouldn't worry too much about it. IMO, bar passage rates largely reflect the quality of the student body, which reflects the quality of the institution. In all honesty, I don't think law schools should teach for the bar. Barbri-type prep materials (whether through the course, or done independently) are more than sufficient to pass any state bar, provided the person in question takes it with a modicum of seriousness, paid a bit of attention their first year, and doesn't panic. In fact, it's usually a sign of a bad law school when they teach to the bar. I would even go so far as to recommend against taking specific subjects just because they appear on the bar if you have absolutely no interest in them (other than your base 1L classes), since they'll be covered in bar prep anyway. It's worked for me on two bars- one in California.

Rates fluctuate from time to time. My alma occasionally has hiccups. It happens. And when it does, everyone overreacts. If it's a long term trend, though, that usually means that admission standards are getting worse, or there is a structural problem (they aren't doing a good job the first year). But, again IMO, I don't think the solution is to teach to the bar.


Okay, this is helpful. Why? Well, first, there's a big divide between litigation and transaction. So, if you know (or at least have a predilection toward) you want to go into transaction work in BigLaw, that is helpful!

So, the first thing is there are no wrong choices. The ideal position for your path would probably be a BigLaw summer position with the firm you want, but, barring that, none of these are *bad*. Next- everyone kind of says they want "in house" long term. But your summer position isn't going to be the key. You need to consider what these disparate opportunities bring to the table. Unless you want to work in the tech industry (patent work? other in house tech work?) I'm not seeing why the tech company is appealing.

Bankruptcy law is kind of cool, in its own specialized way, and seems right up your alley. The DOJ program sounds like it would be a good fit, would give you a good experience, and would be something to talk about with future BigLaw employers. Also? Knowing the BR Code is a good way to start learning about how a set of laws operates together. Of those three, absent other considerations, and given what you've written... well, that would be the most appealing. But I also don't know how important that "extension into the school year" is to you, or money, or, for that matter, the opportunity to maybe catch on with that tech firm as a permanent position.


First, congratulations! Any summer position that gets you some legal experience your 2L year is a good thing.

However, in order to answer your question, more information is needed. What do you want to do? Do you want to litigate? Public service? BigLaw? Real estate transactions? Any ideas? Are you viewing this as an opportunity to rule in/out certain practice areas, or just gain experience in general, or gain a foot in the door somewhere? Money can also be a factor; sometimes, working and bringing home a lot of money that summer (the BigLaw track) can be really helpful; other times, people just need the experience.

For me, I did a judicial clerkship my first summer (1L) and BigLaw my second summer (2L) and that was wonderful for eventual BigLaw. But everyone is different. That DOJ position, for example, looks interesting, but then again, why are you interested in the tech company? Those are two very disparate opportunities. In short, this is such an individualized assessment that just throwing out a bunch of positions, without more, isn't going to be very helpful. I'm also a little concerned that you're just viewing these as resume boosts; it's important to have something on your resume for your 2L summer, but the main thing is the experience it gives you, the networking opportunities, and the chance to understand what you want to do in practice. Put another way, the DOJ position will be very different than the tech company one.


Before I make a long reply (which I have been known to do), let me ask you a few questions; what, if any, conditions are on the scholarships?

More specifically, does the TJ scholarship have a minimum GPA or class rank requirement? If so, what is it?

TJ graduates students, on average, with some of the worst job prospects in the nation. It is facing some severe financial issues (defaulting on debt obligations for its new building). It is offering full rides to students who score a 153/3.0 (uGPA) who, IMHO, are students who probably shouldn't be considering law school. So if you are *seriously* considering it, make sure you know what you're getting into, make sure that the "renewable" scholarship has conditions you are aware of, and price in the cost of living. And be aware that you very well could graduate and not have a job in the legal profession.

Huh. I just looked at TLS.

Part of me was like, "Woah. Pretty cool and vibrant. Kind of reminds me of LSD (heh) back in the day."

And then part of me was like, "WTF? This isn't the blind leading the blind... this is the some of the worst FUD I've ever seen. Nice avatars, though."

Where should I go next fall? / Re: USD v. UC Hastings v. (Maybe) UCI
« on: April 08, 2015, 05:09:53 PM »
I'm going to add a statement that largely agrees with Citylaw.

If you want to practice in LA/SoCal, and you have a free ride at Chapman (and check those scholarship conditions), then why not go there? Especially if the scholarship conditions are less onerous than other schools.

Look, USD and Hastings are better schools, but not by much. All things being equal, I would go to USD or Hastings. But they are not. If the difference is a full ride, plus you know you want to practice in LA, then go to Chapman. Just have very realistic expectations coming out of it.


Concur. I mainly disagree with you on small things because it's fun, and it keeps the conversations alive! I started posting here as a 0L back in the day, posted sporadically in law school (a little 1L, a little 3L), and then posted briefly my first year at BigLaw. I came back recently and couldn't believe the spam takeover. It makes me pretty sad; this used to be the go-to community.

Where should I go next fall? / Re: USD v. UC Hastings v. (Maybe) UCI
« on: April 08, 2015, 09:40:02 AM »
This is an important decision, but do not over-complicate it.

If I were in your shoes, the first factor for these two schools would be money, the second would be location. As of right now, I would not consider the joint MBA program a major factor- I have known a few joint MBAs, and they have been very driven, focused, and had specific goals in mind. No offense, but ... you are not striking me in that category. I may be wrong, but I would focus, right now, on the JD. Especially since you seem uncertain what benefit you would be deriving from that degree.

Although you would presumably qualify for in-state at Hastings, the tuition (without scholarships) is still higher than USD. The rankings differences do not really matter. If you want to practice in SoCal, you should go to USD, especially if your costs will be lower.

In short, everything you've written makes it sound like you should go to USD. The cost will be lower. The cost of living will be lower. It is closer to the market you want to practice in. IMO, it is the better option, given what you've written.

" I have kept my 1L property book, which is covered in pointless highlighter marks to remind to keep it simple,"

Heh. I never marked by books at all, since I took all my notes by writing (in actual handwriting!). Took 3 times as long, but it was worth it for me, and had amazing re-sale value!

But I will never forget one of my friends' tort books. The entire thing was highlighted. I asked her if the parts she didn't highlight were the important passages.

She didn't think that was funny.


A few quick notes-

1. Procrastination is the killer in law school. Here's why LSAT + uGPA (before grade inflation) were such a good predictor for success. The LSAT was decent at seeing if you had the aptitude for law school; in short, could you read, analyze, and do the logic (whether abstract, like applying rules to facts in torts, or more concrete, like 1L property). uGPA was a good proxy for follow through and work ethic. You do not have graded home work or quizzes. You will have final exam (most likely) that is 100% of your grade. You may have absolutely no feedback until the next semester, grade wise, how you are doing. You absolutely must stay current with everything- all the reading assignment, all the classes, all the time. Form a study group (if possible) with other students so you're talking about the classes. And so on. Find out what works best for you- I learn by writing, so I took extensive notes for each reading assignment (that's how I learn best). The only person who will keep you on task is you, and many people try and catch up at the end- it's too late. If you go to a lecture, and you haven't done the reading, and you're on facebook because you don't understand... then you're in trouble.

2. You will have to work twice as hard in the subjects you don't care about. Some subjects (whatever they might be) will be taught well, will make sense, and you'll love. You'll want to learn more. Some subjects will have a crappy professor, will be dry as hell, will be at 8am, and those are the ones you have to watch out for.

I only pass this along because I always get concerned when I hear people say that they never have trouble working when it's something they like. Well, of course. But that's why it's called work, and not happy fun time. :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33