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 7 ... 55
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.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: March 18, 2016, 09:57:50 AM »

If your response is "Yes, but future FBI bombshells will affect the race", then we're back to the land of speculation and wishful thinking.

Stop feeding the troll. The "popcorn" began with the Benghazi hearing. Remember, the one that Senor Toll guaranteed would be the downfall of Clinton?

Same story, different day. You can't have a discussion with someone who changes the facts to fit their opinions.

Pursuing an LLM / Re: LLM thoughts?
« on: March 17, 2016, 12:03:31 PM »
It depends on what you want to do with the LLM. Are you looking for tenure track law school gig, getting into the private sector, etc. An LLM in what?

Generally, I don't think LLMs are all that useful, at least not enough to justify the cost. The exceptions would be Tax and Natural Resources/Environmental.

I would say that the only truly useful LLMs (outside of tenure track law school, and even those are marginal) is the Tax LLM, and even those are only good from specific schools.

I've known attorneys that have practiced in environmental law successfully; none of them needed an LLM. It doesn't hurt, but (unlike tax law) I don't see it as being worth the money.

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: KU v. Washburn
« on: March 14, 2016, 02:36:39 PM »
Disclaimer- while I am familiar with quite a few legal markets, KS/MO isn't one of them.

Generic advice; once you move out of the T14, the most important things to consider are cost and location. Period. Kansas will have marginally better job prospects, but it's unlikely to be worth the added expense. Especially if you are planning on practicing in that geographic location.

Make sure you review the terms and conditions of the scholarships. Also, don't depend on graduating at the top of your class- 100% of law school students believe they will finish at the top 10% of their class.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: February 29, 2016, 03:21:31 PM »

Exactly. I got into a discussion with a guy once who was touting the Paul McCartney-is-Dead conspiracy. When I pointed out that there is no actual evidence to support the claim, he responded "Of course not! They covered it up man!" Logical reasoning at it's finest.

Yep. No more feeding the troll for me. I will say this - it's amazing not just how wrong he is, but how spectacularly. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

But engaging a troll is like banging you head against a wall; it only feels good when you stop. :)

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: February 29, 2016, 09:13:01 AM »


I will be brief. A website is not a periodical. Shocker. An op-ed by a person most known for writing a prior op-ed called, "Barack Obama's Presidency is spiraling downward," is not reporting.

Yes, we know that you love your popcorn. And before this, you got your popcorn out for the Benghazi hearing. And, well, that went as everyone expected except for you. And you have made many fearless predictions, such as Bernie will win it all, and the GOP will have an amazing and awesome candidate.

Here's the problem. Essentially, your predictions are non-falsifiable, as are those of any troll. That's why we're not responding to you (this will be my last exception). Other people bother with facts, and what is. That doesn't mean they will be right- after all, no one knows the future. But it means that they are basing on something other than want to happen.

On the other hand, you just repeat the same things. You will be here, trolling the same comments. If something happens, you can be right. If Clinton is elected, you will just say, "Oh, there must have been a cover up! I will be here with my popcorn, waiting for the revelations!"

Of course, I suppose one could make a substantial amount of money by taking whatever you say, and betting against it. Perhaps you'd be so kind to provide us your popcorn-worthy list of who will win the NBA Championship? I am quite positive that you have the 76ers.

In the meantime, enjoy your popcorn. Whether you are right (unlikely, if the past predicts the future) or wrong, why not take your political posturings to a place where people are a) more likely to care, and b) less likely to know that you're completely full of it?

Law School Admissions / Re: Am I making a mistake with my law school plan?
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:45:52 PM »
If you're being serious, I will give you a serious answer.

A 170 LSAT with a 4.0 uGPA (undergraduate GPA) would put you in the running for any of the top schools in the nation, especially if you have finished school early and are competing athletically.

The school you're looking at is, based on your input, roughly 51 - 100. Not bad, but a different kettle of fish.

I wouldn't hurry this decisions. You don't list your age - if you're a non-trad UG (military, transfer, something else), then maybe it's worth it. On the other hand, law school is much more rigorous than UG is. Period. People often struggle.

Maybe you should more seriously consider your options rather than rush through. Know yourself a little better.

Job Search / Re: 2L Summer Job Offers - Choosing One - Advice?
« on: February 24, 2016, 02:43:15 PM »
Basically, I'm concerned about whether or not I should hedge my bets on this unofficial possible post-grad employment chance. Because if hedging my bets on that is unrealistic (as some people say hiring decisions are usually hinging on bar results these days) then I'm not as certain about the appeal of one versus another.

There's no single answer to this question you posed. It appears that you currently have one position, with two in-house offers.

A lot of it depends on the nature/reputation/work environment of the places. What is the better opportunity? I honestly don't know. You gave us a laundry list of what the job provides, but nothing about what the job *is*, or what you *want*.

You have to look at yourself. What do you want? Look at job 1- they offer what appears to be a path to a job. But do you want that job? Will you be happy if you graduate and work there? If not, then why are you thinking about it? If yes, then the answer should be simple.

And job two- does it provide skills and networking opportunities in addition to the money?

Not to be too ... easygoing about it, but the money you make your 2L summer isn't going to amount to a whole hill of beans compared to your career. Make the decision based on where you want to be 5 and 10 years down the road.

I started undergrad in 2010. After 3 years of poor performance I left school for a couple years and worked and reevaluated my life. Because I was on probation this counted as an academic dismissal. I have since returned to school at a different University and have maintained a 3.5 GPA for the last two semesters and hope to so so for this one and the next, after which I'll graduate. If I do well on the LSAT, how much will my earlier performance affect law schools' decisions?

I agree with MaintainFL, and will add a few notes. First, the good news. You're not screwed. Now, the less good news.

You have *two* separate issues. One is poor uGPA (undergraduate GPA). The other is the academic dismissal. They are not the same issue. Let me explain why.

The overall bad uGPA will, in and of itself, be a reason that you will not get into some schools. This is a numbers game, and schools use a matrix with your uGPA and LSAT score. In other words, below a certain (combined) level, your application may not get looked at with some schools. On the other hand, this should give you a very good incentive to do well on the LSAT. Since you, um, took a break, you are technically a non-trad (non-traditional student) and if you do really well you would be a "splitter" (high LSAT, low uGPA) that schools will admit a percentage of to boost their numbers. But, in short, it's not the death of you- and, given that you have a record of doing better academically once you came back, it's not too bad.

The other issue is bigger. You will need to explain the academic dismissal. This is (for lack of a better word) a "big deal" for law school and the Bar. Not that it happened- but that you can explain it with candor. Were you unready? Didn't take it seriously? Had a family issue? Had a medical issue? You will need to explain this openly and honestly, and, just as importantly, without excuses. Own it, whatever it might be.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 55