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 8 ... 49
"World renowned schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford are at the top and that doesn't change, but to any 0L choosing a mid-level school please do not use the rankings.  Nobody cares whether a school is in eight way tie for 94th or 4 way tie for 82nd."

While I agree, for the most part, with the post, I will slightly disagree with this statement. IME, the rankings are a useful guideline to *roughly* breaking down the law schools. As the post indicates, the difference between, say, 82 and 94 is non-existent. Heck, the difference between 50 and 92 is non-existent. But the rankings do provide some useful help.

Roughly speaking, there are national schools (often referred to as the T14), regional schools, state schools, and local schools. And slight variations within those. And the rankings roughly reflect those divisions.

A national school (the Harvards and Yales) will allow you to almost guarantee a BigLaw job (if that's what you want) and a choice of where you want to practice nationwide, if you are able to relocate anywhere. In addition, if you want to follow a certain track (Fed Clerkship-academic, for example), these are the schools that you should be most interested in. These are also the only schools where paying full tuition might be worthwhile.

After that, as you descend in the ranking, you get the regional (schools that place in their state, and to a lesser extent, within their region), schools that place within their state, and schools that, for the most part, place within their city and locality. There are always exceptions (I often cite U Maine, whose rankings show it to be a local school like Suffolk, but places state-wide as the only law school in Maine), but it's a good heuristic.

Also, as a general rule, the job placement options become better the higher in the rankings you go. That said, they don't become good enough (outside of the very top national schools) to justify significant differences in tuition.

So, rankings can be useful as a rough guide and a starting point. But the most important thing, outside of the T14, is cost and location of the school you plan on attending. In addition, do not choose a school just because of the ranking- a school that is less expensive and in the location you want to practice, but ranked 60 spots lower than another school, will likely be a better choice.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: 162 to 170 before October LSAT?
« on: September 29, 2015, 07:30:51 AM »
I wonder if there is any actual statistical data which indicates whether or retaking the LSAT results in higher scores?

I mean, obviously some people are going to score higher on a retake and others are going to score lower. But for those who score higher, I have to think that they did something different the second time. Maybe they modified their approach, took a prep class, dedicated more time to studying, whatever.

The reason I'm wondering about this is because I think a of people think that just the act of retaking the LSAT alone will result in a higher score. "I scored 160 this time, so if I study some more and retake I'll score 165 next time." But I'm not sure that doing the same study regimen a second time makes much difference. Again, I think you'd have to change it up and explore new angles in order to score higher.

I'm going to briefly comment on this. The thing to remember is that, to a large extent, the test measure aptitude, not learning. It's not like a calculus test, where you can study for specific things. Having gone through the process myself, I would advise re-taking the test only if the issue is one of the following:

1. A specific issue with that test day. You were sick. Hungover. Way too nervous. You read the directions wrong. Something external caused you to perform poorly, and retaking the test would allow that external condition to dissipate.

2. You can improve your test-taking strategies. Some people are good at taking standardized test, some aren't... naturally. Optimizers, strategizers, what have you. This is worth a few points. Familiarity also helps. Did you go in cold? Did you not understand how the test is scored and how to optimize your score (best guessing, elimination of obviously incorrect answers, and so on). These skills can be learned and applied.

3. The section often called "logic games" is one that, IME, can be learned to a certain extent (the "certain extent" is key- there are strategies for mapping these out if you aren't very good at this, and these are learned). If this section is one that you struggled with, *and you are really willing to put in the time*, this section is worth boning up on.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 31, 2015, 11:07:25 AM »


Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.


I think that you are failing to understand. You seem outrage and/or entertained. There's only one problem- when everything is an outrage, nothing is. When we can add -gate to every controversy (quick- are you a Brady supporter or hater), then who cares? More importantly, when everything devolves into an undifferentiated mass of "Benghazi / Fast & Furious / Vince Foster / Whitewater / Birth Certificate / Lois Lerner / Unprecedented Executive Power / NSA / whatevs" then people tune out. They tune out even more when the stakes seem so ... petty and small.

More importantly, you make the common mistake of believing that other people care *the exact way* that you care. First, the people that care the same way you care is small. Second, there is another, equally small, portion of people that care an equal, but opposite, direction as you do. Finally, the vast majority of people *don't care.* The can't name the Supreme Court justices, are hard pressed to name their own (federal) Senators, and haven't a prayer of naming their own state legislators ... let alone the ones outside of their district. That's fine- they have better things to do- watch football, make money, play with their children. They will probably start tuning into the election, kinda, sometime next year.

But, sure, the keyboard commandos will have fun. One side will say, "But, but, but, X person violated the law." And one side will say, "Partisan witchhunt." And 99% of the time, it's just background noise. Guess what? Nothing will happen, people will move on, and one side will vaguely remember a partisan witchhunt, and one side will vaguely remember that Hillary Clinton broke the law and got away with it. But most people just won't care, except for the influx of stupid ads during the election.

Same as it ever was. Does that mean nothing will happen this time? I don't know for sure- unlike you, I don't make dramatic and certain pronouncements. But I make probabilistic (Bayesian) assessments based on what I know, and I'm willing to back them up. You? Eh.... It seems you're not as confident in your ability to predict. Because something tells me that deep down, you enjoy making big statements, but fear that like Charlie Brown and Lucy, you've been sold a false of goods. That you're very excited to kick that football, but .... well, you should know enough by now to know you'll end up on your behind.

General Board / Re: Are Lawyers Getting Dumber Aritcle?
« on: August 26, 2015, 07:38:05 AM »
"you start a separate argument and then ask me to provide citations???"

I think you are unclear on the concept. I do not "ask" for things you cannot provide. That was a very polite way of saying you are a fool.
well actually you did ask (you fool)
and more ad hominem
knee jerk city

Snakes formerly known as Pie,

You still seem to be unclear. Here, let me show you-

"Plaintiff failed to provide a citation for any facts or law alleged in its motion, or attach a supporting affidavit as required. This curious omission is indicative of the overall strength of Plaintiff's argument."

After a while, you get cured of the whole, "Derp, lying liar, derp, ad hom" style of argumentation. Or maybe not! Some people never learn.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 25, 2015, 04:43:08 PM »
But, fwiw, I neither know, nor care, if Clinton is telling the truth, or did something wrong.

You seem to place great valence on certain issues, no doubt influenced by your priors. I could care less. Clinton is not my preferred candidate. I just make Bayesian predictions. That's why I still think that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee - not because I support her, but because I know that Sander and O'Malley will never win the primaries, and no one else has (yet) announced their candidacy, and the Clinton, to date, has gone far past anyone else in the invisible primary. Also? Most voters aren't paying attention right now, so while you might care deeply, unless something real develops (which is unlikely) this will just be considered more partisan smoke- people who don't like her will continue to not like her, people who do like her will think it's a partisan witchhunt, and people in the middle (all three of them) won't be able to tease out the details a year from now.

Based upon what I know, I find it exceptionally unlikely that this will amount to anything. In addition, you have misinterpreted the facts to date (IMO). That doesn't mean you can't be right. Anything can happen. Maybe there will be some smoking gun. Maybe the constant "drip drip" of revelation will erode Clinton's support and cause her to drop out of the race. But I doubt it- and I find wagers tend to clarify matters.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 25, 2015, 04:28:13 PM »

"Mishandling of classified info shouldn't be difficult to grasp; we are just waiting to see in what manner this is prosecuted. "

Tell you what Cinnamon. We'll make a little bet- if they prosecute Clinton (or if she accepts any sort of deal that isn't some de minimis arrangment), then I will post "Cinnamon is right, and a political savant."

If not, then you will post, "Loki13 was right, and a political savant."

Loser doesn't get to post about politics again. We will give it, what, a four month time frame? Say, Christmas? One of will get a Christmas present. Sound good?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Reading Anxiety
« on: August 25, 2015, 02:41:52 PM »

I'm not sure if there's a generalized answer for you. If it's LSAT-specific (in other words, you performed fine in undergraduate), then you may just need to acclimate. Practice by taking times practice tests. Repeat. Keep repeating. Get a comfort level. Once you get more used to taking it in a structured and timed environment, it should get easier and get you used to the real thing.

Next, remember that you can always re-take it. Try and take some of the pressure off of you. You will certainly get some answers wrong- and that's okay! Just keep going on.

If these steps do not measurably help with your stress level, talk to a professional about what other factors might be at play.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 25, 2015, 09:12:24 AM »

I think that you misunderstand the valence of the issues. For example, you and I might agree that "bridgegate" is no big deal (people affected might disagree), but it was a investigated and prosecuted by the US-A and resulted in guilty pleas.

On the other hand, you can speculate all you want about the email server, but to date it isn't an issue that will result in an offense. Nor will it. On the other hand, it is an issue that could prove to be politically damaging.

I understand you think it's fun to watch it- and more power to you. But it can be easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. :)

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Reading Anxiety
« on: August 25, 2015, 09:07:07 AM »
I have reading anxiety and it has increased since I have started studying for the LSAT. Does anyone else have this problem? Recommendations? Experiences? Thank you.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "reading" anxiety (as opposed to other anxiety)? Is this an issue you have with tests in general, standardized tests, or that you experienced in undergrad?

My two thoughts are as follows-
First, please get a handle on this. If you are experiencing anxiety with the LSAT, it is *nothing* compared to law school and the bar. It's like trying to compare a nice hot shower with a CAT5 hurricane. I'm not saying that to make you more anxious, I'm trying to tell you that you need to get a handle on your anxiety now (which to your credit you are doing).

As for what to do, I find meditation helpful. I understand that there are medications, but I am not a doctor and I do not take any.

General Board / Re: Are Lawyers Getting Dumber Aritcle?
« on: August 25, 2015, 07:25:30 AM »
"you start a separate argument and then ask me to provide citations???"

I think you are unclear on the concept. I do not "ask" for things you cannot provide. That was a very polite way of saying you are a fool.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 49