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 9 ... 59
31
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 05, 2016, 12:05:56 PM »

Her run for higher office is over.

Based on the immutable Law of Cinnamon Troll*, that means her run for higher office is just beginning!

Seriously- can you give us your NFL picks? There's some money to be made here.


*The Law of Cinnamon Troll, loosely stated, is that if Cinnamon Troll says it, it is either wrong now, or will be wrong shortly.

32
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 05, 2016, 11:40:09 AM »

And for the record I wasn't wrong or Clinton would have been a lock already.


Uh huh. Sure, when your candidate disbands his campaign, announces he's voting for the other candidate, and all of the people that have endorsed him (well, I should say the few ...) have come out strong for Hillary ... and when Hillary has been busy building a general campaign apparatus and campaigning for the general election- who do you believe, the Always Wrong Troll or your lying eyes?

What, are you going to be posting after the convention saying, "It's just a flesh wound. Just wait for my popcorn! Sanders will win on write-in ballots! Derp!" Wait ... that's exactly what you're going to be writing.

Keep up the comedy stylings, friend! Like I wrote, you're a pitch perfect parody of the idiot commenter. Gold star!

33
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 05, 2016, 10:39:43 AM »
Hillary Clinton can never be trusted to hold political office again

Given your past history, it would now appear that Hillary Clinton is a lock for the White House!

I will say this- while a stopped clock is right at least twice a day, you have the unenviable tenacity to both be always wrong, and continue posting. As they say, if you don't know why other people are laughing, then you're the joke. :)

34
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 05, 2016, 10:04:01 AM »
No charges for Clinton, Cinnamon.

Looks like another prediction fell through. How many does that make?


All of them? I mean, c'mon. If you didn't know he was a delusional troll by the time of the last Benghazi hearing, what will it take?

But, sure, we can continue to laugh at him. At this point, I am reasonably confident that he is a Hillary supporter that is just doing a pitch-perfect parody of her crazy enemies. Because, really, no one is that stupid.

Right?

35
I think we need to break this out into what the real issues are. And, no, anecdotal evidence (I once heard some attorneys from low ranked schools arguing) doesn't cut it. I once knew an attorney with a JD from Harvard who was dumb as a box of rocks, but that doesn't mean that most attorneys from Harvard are.

Law schools are sorting mechanisms. The first of many, but a very important one. The T14 gets better "raw ingredients" than the T4. Put another way, the very last bubble applicant accepted at Yale would be a full ride scholarship, top recruit at any T4 school. To analogize it to football- you can have great players at a D3 school, but every player at Alabama is going to be pretty, pretty good, because they get the best high school students.

But what does that mean? That means that early in your career, when you have no client, no real work product, and credentials matter, the credentials of your law school matter a great deal. And the simple fact that you were good enough to get into a T14 school means that you are in the running for a BigLaw job, or a clerkship, or whatever it is you want. Whereas if you go to a different school, you need to prove more- law review, moot court, good grades, and so on. And the farther down the food chain you do, the more you need to do in school to show that your personal credentials > school's.

Now, once you've been in practice for a while, this fades. Because you have other things to be judged on - your book of business, your work product. But some things will continue to live on- the network of successful alums, or for some schools, the local, state, or regional influence. Some things may even be surprising- for example, if you want to go into state politics, you are likely better off attending State Law U. than Harvard. And cost is a factor, and, as I've stated before, while the difference between T14 and T4 may be noticeable, the difference between say, #30 and #70 not so much.


36
Glad to hear that I helped!

If you haven't already, I would recommend lawschoolnumbers.com (make sure you look at the graphs tab) to research the schools you like and see how similar people did in prior cycles; looking quickly, it would appear that you are on the border for Stanford. I would also recommend lawschooltransparency.com to get a good idea of what the school's actual employment numbers and prospects (incl. clerkships, if you're into that) look like.

Finally, in addition to applying to your dream school and other T14 schools that are "national schools," definitely apply to some schools (the "safety schools") in the region you want to practice, so you have some comparable offers.

37
I just got a 168 on the LSAT (first time). I have a 3.99 GPA from an Ivy League, with a degree in biology. I worked all throughout undergrad and will have 2 years of work experience post-undergrad. I'm a white female.

I scored higher than my average PT but I was hoping to break 170 (even though I only got that on one PT). I self-studied for 6 months, and raised my diagnostic 6 points. I only got 3 wrong on LG, got the most incorrect on LR, so not necessarily a ton of potential for raising my score. I know there is no harm in re-taking, but it would be nice to spend the fall focusing on my application and picking the best school, rather than spending all my free time studying.

I am hoping for T14 with a good amount of money... Stanford would be nice but probably out of reach. I don't need to do Harvard/Yale, etc. I am happy with a mid/low tier T14 as long as the financial package is good. Is it worth it to re-take or are these stats good enough for a T14 school with substantial scholarships?

Let's break this apart into spearate components-

1. You've already spent 6 months practicing, and raised your diagnostic 6 points.
2. You've only ever scored 170 once on a practice test.
3. A 168 corresponds to roughly the 96th percentile (I don't have the absolute most recent numbers)- this isn't a straight scale, and the differences become more pronounced (or, as some might say, more variable) in the range above 165.
4. You currently have a 168/3.99, which should get you in at a T14.

So, what does that mean?

It's up to you. Is there a chance you'll score better? Sure! Maybe you'll get a 169 ... maybe even a 172! Or maybe not. But here's the thing- you'll be giving up time, money, and peace of mind. It's not just the registration fee for the LSAT - you're in the area of severely diminishing returns (it's not like you had a logic games issue). It already appears that you have derived a significant advantage in LSAT study; I don't think you're going to get much more, if any, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time studying the exact same dry materials. Like I said- diminishing returns.

I wouldn't do it. If I were you, I'd apply to your dream school (Stanford), maybe a handful of other T14s (for scholarship), and a few good schools outside of the T14 in areas that you'd be interested in practicing (because they will definitely be interested in giving you $$$$). Let it ride.

And congratulations. Try to enjoy the time before law school!

38
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 17, 2016, 07:07:21 AM »

So here's my question:

Let's assume that HRC wins. If she beats Trump, who is anathema to so many voters, by only say, five points, does that mean that a less Trump-y type of anti-establishment candidate would have smoked her? I mean, when you look at Trump it's hard to believe that she's not ahead by 25 (which could happen, maybe).

Further, and more importantly, does that mean that the Democrats now have to find a way to deal with the fact that nearly half the electorate is willing to go for something radically different? I think it legitimately calls into question the assumption of a permanent Democratic majority based on future demographics.

Great questions, and if I had the answers, then I'd already know the future. And I'd be buying lottery tickets instead of commenting here!

I think that we can both overestimate and underestimate what current trends "mean." For example, Trump could actually (to borrow the old phrase) get caught with a dead girl or a live boy, and he still wouldn't get completely blown out by Clinton. The reason why? Because there's so much polarization. There is a large well of people that would vote for the GOP (or anti-Democrat) if the Democrats were running George Washington reincarnated, and the GOP was running Osama Bin Laden's brain-eating zombie corpse. It's just the way it is (and in reverse, as well).

What's more interesting (to me) is that Trump exploited a core demographic in the GOP that had previously fallen into line- a large portion of which is racist, a large portion of which is populist, and a large portion of which doesn't fall into the strong "moral values" category AND is opposed to the libertarian think-tanky ideas that animate the GOP elite. That was his floor - and it was a floor within the GOP that no other candidate had. More importantly (from my perspective) is that the GOP has used a scorch earth strategy for so long in devaluing political norms, in devaluing intellectual opinion, in devaluing media and journalism, in propagating bizarre conspiracy theories (or, at least, not denouncing them), and in devaluing their own party leaders ... that when it came time to try and put some type of authority into the arena ... they couldn't. I mean, seriously, when the party has to turn to Ted "Shut Down Gummint, and Everyone Hates Me" Cruz as a savior, you know things have gone seriously wrong.

Which leads me to three final observations-

1. I never believed in a permanent majority for either party. The two party system is an artifact of first-past the post and our legislative/Presidential system, and as long as we have it, we'll have two parties. As long as there are two parties, one can attain temporary supremacy, and then the other will adapt and change. It always happens.

2. I'm more curious about what happens to the GOP. This is unprecedented. It would be nice to see them react to this by returning to more moderate positions in order to compete. But .... we'll see. Thing is, the 2010 (census) election entrenched them to such as extent in the House and at the state-level, they may view this as an anomaly and just double down.

3. The Democratic primary was unsurprising. The Clinton moderation (from 1992) has run its course. At a certain point, you have to expect some pull to the left. In addition, the Democratic party (thanks to GOP abdication) is now occupying the whole range from middle to extreme left. Assuming Clinton wins, it will be interesting to see what happens in 2020 - will someone run against her?

39
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 16, 2016, 02:47:43 PM »


And many of us will vote for jill stein...also, anti establishment.

Doesn't some other village need an idiot?

40
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: June 16, 2016, 09:59:04 AM »
...and I would add that it's, well, amusing that someone keeps finding the same topic "popcorn worthy" in this election (remember- he had the popcorn ready for the Benghazi hearing), while ignoring a pretty amazing election that includes, inter alia-

1. A party's prior nominee in open warfare against their current nominee. Seriously, how amazing is the Romney/Trump split (putting Utah ... UTAH!!!! in play).

2. A sitting GOP senator saying that the GOP nominee is too bigoted and racist to be President (??? that's from Kirk, today).

3. The first-ever female presidential nominee from one of the big-two parties.

4. Having both candidates have unfavorable ratings that have never been recorded (seriously- Clinton would have serious difficulties, but for Trump).

5. The continuing and open question as to whether the GOP will revolt prior to, or during, Cleveland.

6. The open question as to whether events (the economy-Brexit, a terror attack, etc.) could substantially upset the race and ... we could actually have a President Trump.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 59