Law School 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 ... 54
I'm very sorry to say that-- at least in the case of the University of Florida Levin College of Law-- passaroa25 is correct: UF won't even consider the application of a formerly academically disqualified applicant. This remains the case EVEN THOUGH the ABA has completely waived any required waiting period before reapplication and simply requires the would-be second round law student to make "an affirmative showing" that they possess the requisite intellectual and academic skills to complete law school and contribute to the diversity, prestige, and talent pool of the class. Seems incredibly narrow-minded to me, but here's the rule. We don't have to like or even respect it (I'm glad to hear that Michigan is more open-minded toward second chances): "INELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION
Applicants who have attended another law school and are ineligible to return as a continuing student or are not in good standing (including, but not limited to, having been academically dismissed), are not eligible to apply to the Levin College of Law."

Holy thread necromancy!

Well, since this was brought up, individual law schools can, of course, have admissions requirements that are more restrictive than the ABA minimum. So the lesson, as always, is check with the school you will be applying at. It shouldn't be hard.

Regarding UF, it makes more explicit what is implicit at some other schools (cf. FSU - "Applicants must be in good standing at all institutions attended to be eligible for consideration."). The reason why the Florida schools, as opposed to some other schools, might have a more ... selective approach here is because Florida has one of the most demanding character and fitness (if not the most) applications in the nation. Seriously. I've gotten my bar license in multiple jursidictions, and while some jurisdictions are a rubber stamp, Florida is more like a proctological exam.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: April 21, 2016, 03:55:32 PM »
...and he is poised to take California...

Evidence? Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

Of course he's making stuff up.

Stop feeding the troll. Did you think it would be different this time? ;)

That said, for whatever reason, it does have a pretty good rep from those in the know, and it places very well outside of MO. It's kind of like Emory in that way - I never really think about it, but it's a very good law school that places well.

WUSL definitely has a good rep, and it's perennial place on USNWR's list probably imparts at least some degree of name recognition even if it's just "Oh yeah, I've heard of Wash U."

I guess what I mean (and admittedly my opinion is based on ambiguous stuff) is that Wash U isn't exactly what I'd call a nationally prestigious school. Good? Yes. Prestigious? Meh.

I'm sure that Wash U has a great rep in the Midwest, but outside of that region are doors being opened by a strong alumni network or by the school's inherent reputation? I really don't know. I suppose a CA equivalent would be UCLA/USC. Great local reps, but probably not going to land you a gig on Wall St. 

Other schools that are fairly close in rank (Cornell, Georgetown) have a certain panache that the Wash Us, Emorys, and Bostons of the world do not. Such is the ephemeral nature of rankings and prestige.

I think we are on the same page.

I might quibble, a little, regarding GULC. GULC is an example of a school whose name in USNWR and with laypeople is > than in actuality, but maybe that's just me (I cut it off at Cornell).

But yeah, WUSL is definitely with the Emor(ies) and UCLAs and BUs of the world. In terms of reputation. A solid, good school, but not (strictly speaking) a "national" one.

I've always thought of WUSL as an outlier. It's USNWR ranking seems to outpace it's national reputation.

That's not to say it isn't a well respected school, it is definitely respected. But compared to other similarly situated law schools, it just doesn't seem to have the same immediately recognizable "name".

I'm not sure if I'm in agreement, or disagreement, with your conclusion, but I agree with your premise!

There is a mismatch between WUSL's USNWR ranking and their "general name value." Then again, I rank it from Cornell up (roughly T14, now T13) as being the only real "name" schools.

That said, for whatever reason, it does have a pretty good rep from those in the know, and it places very well outside of MO. It's kind of like Emory in that way - I never really think about it, but it's a very good law school that places well.

Are you going for a JD or a Master's? Assuming you meant JD, I think the decision comes down to money and location. Both are good schools, both will offer almost identical educations (as will most law schools), and both will provide post-grad job opportunities that are mostly within their respective regions.

In other words, if you want to live in DC go for GW, and if you want to live in St. Louis go for Washington U. I don't know about the job prospects in St. Louis, but Wash U is the big dog in town so that's going to help. DC is a very competitive market, but the job market is much larger. Keep in mind that outside of their regions, each school will be viewed very similarly.

Has either school offered any money? That's a huge factor.

I agree with almost everything written here. Cost is the biggest factor.

That said, WUSL is a bit of an anomaly in terms of jobs- yes, it places great in St. Louis/MO. But (this is a little weird), it also places decently in NY, Illinois, and DC. GW is more regional (from NY to VA, but really DC!). I wouldn't call WUSL a "national" school, but it does have some diverse connections.

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Brooklyn vs. Rutgers Newark
« on: April 15, 2016, 02:11:22 PM »
Let's see-

In the pre-crash days, Brooklyn was considered a better school (in terms of the "quality" of the student body, assuming you believe LSAT + uGPA = quality). However, post-crash, Rutgers/Newark is the equal of it. Rutgers has better employment numbers (getting a job) and even does better, now, in clerkships and "BigLaw." Brooklyn places most of the their students in New York state (duh), and Rutgers/Newark places about half in NJ, a quarter in NY.

So, what does this all mean? Well, I always say that the two things that matter most are cost and location. The locations are similar- if you want a NY job out of Rutgers, you will get it. So I'd make the decision base on cost (also cost of living- assume Rutgers/Newark is lower).

Finally- regarding the scholarship; remember that the curve is a 3.0, so a 2.67 is not *necessarily* a given as it is at some schools, but at least it doesn't mean you have to finish in the top half.

(As for me- I'd go with the money; Brooklyn doesn't offer enough advantage, and, TBH, I don't think your career plans are likely well-formed enough yet -"public interest of government work"- for you to pass that money up. Because if you're not going into a remunerative field, student debt can be a heckuva thing.)

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: University of Miami vs. Stetson
« on: April 14, 2016, 07:23:40 AM »
Thank you for the reply Loki! I want to note that I am planning on staying in Florida, but I want to consider my options in case I ever decided to move back home to Tennessee. You mentioned Stetson being great for litigation and oral advocacy, how does Miami compare in those areas? Also, if I chose to relocate from South FL at some point to North Florida is Miami still competitive in that region. Even with Stetson's scholarship I will more than likely be looking at six figures of debt regardless. Again, thank you for the in depth response.

The answers to your questions are both simple, and complicated. Florida is a single legal market, in the same sense that, say, California is a single market. But the market contains multitudes.

So let's discuss, first, the out-of-state thing. I wouldn't factor that in. But, to the extent you wish to consider it, UM (Miami) travels out of state better than Stetson. Why? Because UM is a private school that attracts a lot of undergrads from out-of-state, because it has a well-known football team, and because the law school (as well) attracts a fair number of out-of-state individuals. Stetson has good reputation in Florida, but not much of one outside of it. That said, if you work in Florida and then wish to go back, you'll have to make your own connections, etc. (And remember that the Florida bar, currently, has no reciprocity with any other state).

Next, there are markets. First, there's the "urban" markets- generally delineated as South Florida (which can be further sub-divided into Miami, F. Lau., "Broward", and W. Palm Beach), Tampa Bay (Tampa/St. Pete), Orlando, Jax, and Tallahassee. Then the state can otherwise be divided into South, Central, and North (incl. panhandle, which is basically Alabama).

Either UM or ST can get you a job state-wide. But UM has much, much better connections in the South Florida market, and Stetson has much better connections in the Central Florida market (esp. Tampa Bay, and Orlando to a lesser extent when looking at urban areas). Think of it partly as a function of proximity - you tend to make your connections where you are.

Either place can get you a job anywhere - an easy example would be applying for a state judicial clerkship, or doing work in Tallahassee.

Now, all that being said; I need to reiterate that if you have not been to these two areas, you probably should visit prior to making a decision if you are torn. There's a saying in Florida that when you travel south in Florida, you're really going north. Miami (and South Florida) is a wonderful, vibrant, international city that people tend to have strong reactions to (one way or the other). Kind of like Los Angeles. Tampa, on the other hand, is a more standard southern city with a lot of northern transplants (small downtown, sprawling suburbs) that also is close to some really nice gulf beaches.

Wrapping up- cost is a heck of a thing. That should play a large factor in your decision, esp. if you're planning on going into criminal work (although you will get loan forgiveness ... um, eventually). You can always see if you can get more money! :)

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: University of Miami vs. Stetson
« on: April 13, 2016, 02:54:11 PM »
I think I can be of more than generic help.

Let me tell you about the pecking order of schools in Florida.

First is UF.
Second (barely) is FSU (or, UF is second barely to FSU - depends on whether you talk to a Gator or a Nole).
Third is Miami.
Fourth is Stetson.
Fifth is everything else.

But that's a generic guide. Each school has advantages and disadvantages. UF, for example, can place better regionally (Atlanta, for example) and has a slightly better name. On the other hand, because it is remote, it doesn't have great internships/jobs while schools is in session. FSU is in the state capitol - and the home of the First DCA. Miami, of course, is king of South Florida. Stetson, while generally lower-perceived, has great connections in the Tampa area and is a great school for litigation / oral advocacy.

So what does this mean for you?

Location and cost. Do not go to law school assuming you will be practicing out-of-state. Period. You are choosing between two Florida schools, you will be learning a lot of Florida law, and it is likely (if not dispositive) that you will be taking the Florida bar and practicing in Florida. To give you an idea-

Of those employed within 9 months of graudation-
Stetson, approximately 81% in Florida, less than 10% elsewhere.
UM, ~ 65% Florida, ~21% elsewhere.

(Numbers don't add up to 100% due to those that report, but are not employed).

Now, note that many of the elsewhere are people that either clerked or snagged one of the few BigLaw jobs (NY, DC) or, for UM (which is a slightly different case) have a significant and substantial presence outside of the state, and made all their connections there.

What does that mean?

Well, UM is a slightly better school, and will give you better options out-of-state. This is all true. But you shouldn't be applying to schools like this with the assumption that you will be practicing somewhere other than Florida.

So, I would take into account two factors- cost, and location. Do you like South Florida? Most people love it, or hate it. South Florida is very different than the rest of the state. If you want to practice in S. Fla., you should go to UM. Definitely. Great connections. And it gives you a better out-of-state name and rep if it comes to it. But if you don't, and the money looks good, check out Stetson. Stetson has *great* connections with prosecutor/PD offices in central and N. Florida.

And I cannot emphasize this enough. Check them out before you decide. Miami is not Tampa.

Here's my thoughts, in brief-

First, as a general matter, I think it was a bad decision to move from three days to two days. If for no other reason that the three day CalBar had a certain ... mystique. I have more than one bar, and I can tell you - my three day CalBar is by far the most impressive, because of the three days.

I also think the changes are ... unfortunate. The essays are the part where the CalBar shines, although (in fairness) with the holistic grading approach ... it mostly weeded out the incompetent. Which is good!

I don't share your view of the PTs. Personally, the inclusion of PTs (which other Bars do not have) is not just distinctive for California, it also most closely resembles actual legal practice. You are given an issue and an area of law; now, make it work.

I also don't share your view that California will be flooded by out-of-state attorneys. The primary barriers to entry in California are two-fold; the existence of a Bar, and the rules on reciprocity. In short, if you're going to move and practice, you're going to take the Bar regardless of two or three days; it's the reciprocity rules that keep out most attorneys.

My personal view is that the three days is a good idea; but, then again, I would also be in favor of re-working the Bar extensively to more accurately reflect current legal practice; fewer "race to the courthouse to record a deed in random jurisdictions multiple choice questions," and more questions that reflect a knowledge of the law as it might be used.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: April 05, 2016, 07:23:04 AM »
Maintain, have you given up on Hillary now that you see I was right that the FBI are going to interrogate hillary, huma and Cheryl?

Or do you think I made up that the FBI was going to interview her?

You seemed to be shocked now into silence...she may still have a chance but odds are that she was negligent. Agree?

No, it's just that nothing new has been added to the conversation. You're just repeating the same stuff, so there's nothing interesting to respond to.

Don't feed the troll.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 54