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 10 ... 53
Current Law Students / Re: 1L First Semester Grades
« on: December 01, 2015, 03:33:26 PM »
I'm going to get all wishy washy and agree with both of you. Citylaw and Loki both bring up relevant truths.

Clearly, the legal job market is bad. There are too many law grads for too few jobs. No question about it.


I meet people literally every single day who graduated from schools that you've never heard of, and are successful PDs, DAs, small firm lawyers and solo practitioners. In that sense, Citylaw is right. A highly motivated graduate of a T4 who knows how to hustle and is willing to take some risks will probably do better than a T1 grad who says "But I went to a good school. Give me a job befitting my prestigious education."

The problem I often see is that 25 year olds who have no meaningful real world experience simply cannot navigate the job market effectively, let alone possess the skills to strike out on their own.

This is purely anecdotal (so take it for what it is), but the somewhat older part time students at my non-prestigious law school had better employment stats than the younger full time students. They already knew how to navigate the job market, and were perhaps more realistic about their options.

Hey, I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom! I just take real exception to the claim that there are jobs for anyone with a bit o' spit and polish. There aren't.

Up until this year (I moved) I worked closely with my school's alum office. And the market out there was ... rough. Are there a lot of variables? Sure. How you did in school. Your prior experience. Your connections. Your "gumption." Where in the country you are located. Your willingness to move to find a legal job.

But it's not true that you can just find a job- even a PD job. Even a job working for the State in family law proceedings. And working as a solo practitioner, straight out of law school, is incredibly hard. There are some people that are able to do it, who are able to build those connections quickly, who have the work ethic, who quickly understand the difference between law school and the practice of law. But there are more failures than successes (and I would always recommend someone get some experience, of some kind, before hanging their shingle).

And that's what I will always push back against. The reality is that for just about half of the people that go to law school right now - there won't be a legal job at the other end. Another significant percentage will be in legal jobs that, to be honest, don't pay well and aren't well-respected (which means that law school, from a strictly numbers standpoint, is a three-year long bad investment). On the other hand, if a person takes the time to understand what the legal profession really entails (not TV shows), and dedicates themselves to law school and then their career, it is an immensely rewarding profession.

Although I still haven't gotten to write, "Suck it" in a brief. Someday. It's good to have a dream.

Current Law Students / Re: 1L First Semester Grades
« on: December 01, 2015, 09:27:19 AM »
Basically, yea if you are a licensed attorney you can find a job, unless you a female dog and moan about it.

More than 15% of JDs who graduate remain long-term unemployed. That's the most recent statistics.

More than 30% of JDs who graduate and are employed cannot find employment in the legal field (you want burgers with that). That's the most recent statistics.

This is industry-wide. This is includes the best law schools (HYS) making up for, well, some of the not-so-good ones. This also includes the reduced class from 2012.

Short version- almost 50%. That's terrible. Which is a nice way of saying ... do not believe that. Law school is a great option for some people, and is the equivalent of flushing money down the toilet for other people. Please, please, please make sure you make an informed decision, and do not assume that there will be a job for anyone with a JD. That is not true.

Current Law Students / Re: 1L First Semester Grades
« on: December 01, 2015, 09:20:23 AM »
I'm from California too! How about a 3.0 from schools like Davis, Hastings, or SCU? (I'm asking for my friends too who have similar (although not idential) 1L GPAs)?

I would love a big law summer position but I'm just as interested in medium and small firms and in-house positions. I'm neutral about clerkships personally.

I have considerable work experience prior to law school despite coming straight from undergrad, do you think that will help?

I've been volunteering at a clinic in the limited capacity a 1L can and my school also has a Negotiations Team, Moot Court, and Trial Team. Do you think any of these would help experience wise and if any are better than the other?

Thanks in advance for all the advice. I really appreciate it.

Following on on this and other questions.

First, don't worry about the 3.0. Most people who go to law school did very well in undergrad where there was rampant grade inflation. In other words, getting less than a 4.0 is considered "bad." Law school is not like that. As almost every school, there is a curve, and it is rigorously applied. The most helpful thing for your own understanding is not your absolute grade, but how you did on your own school's curve. That should be freely available (this will be your "class rank" moving forward).

Second, *any* legal experience your first summer is a good thing. I didn't see your school posted, but for most people not attending an Ivy League, a 1L summer at Big Law is out of reach (unless they are, say, T1 and finish at the top of their class). At this point, you shouldn't be looking down at clerkships- I clerked for a state court judge my first summer and it was the most amazing experience ever, and I formed connections I still use- it also gave me a leg up for my second year (I summered at BigLaw for 2L). Repeat- any summer position that gives you legal experience will be valuable. But look for real legal experience. And you also don't know, yet, what you don't know.

Third, regarding what you're looking for in the second year. The general rule of thumb, for employers, is as follows:
Law Review > Moot Court > Trial Team > Secondary Journal > (Other Moot Court, Negotiations Team, Etc.) > Clubs.

This can be fluid; for example, law review (or whatever the primary journal at your school is) will always be a huge bonus, but if you want to work as a prosecutor, they will likely be happy that you were on the trial team. Or, maybe you are a great orator, and your school has a great moot court. But for "general applications" that is the order that most employers will view. In fact, many employers will specifically say "Law Review or Moot Court only" for some positions.

Okay, that's about it for now.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: November 17, 2015, 01:12:37 PM »
Out of curiosity of all the political misconduct, tragedy, and issues in the world today why so much focus on Hilary?

The entertaining, if tragic, belief that the people on this law board share his viewpoint, as opposed to viewing his political ramblings with bemused contempt, and as more appropriate fodder for a site devoted to discussing the finer details of the local dog-catcher election.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: October 29, 2015, 02:05:43 PM »
Clintons testimony should have been private because all the others were private.  Her answers to the YouTube video questions were pathetic and it made her look like an uncaring cold human being.  It humanized her and exposed her disingenuous attitude towards other human beings.  She lied about the video, she knew it was a planned military attack and admitted as much but seems to be able to live with herself.

A private session would have spared the dead victims families the pain of watching her pathetic obfuscation and untruths.

Let's try this again, what, with the basic facts and understanding.

1. "All the others were private." I realize you were born yesterday, but this is surprising. You know that there are hours, and hours, and hours of prior footage of the people that they've had before them, but you've been too uninterested to watch? You can google it! Heck, there's this thing called "Youtube" that the secretive Benghazi committee posts selected videos too. Or, if you don't have much computer knowledge, you can watch C-SPAN. Of course, since your only real point is that testimony you don't like should be secret, so as not to interfere with what you want to be true, I suppose you could have a place in Stalin's Russia.
2. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Of course, had you paid attention to what I said, or the prior dozen or so investigations, you would have known that already. You would have already known that the State Department was going to say that this was a possibility early on, and that the CIA (not State, not the Administration) changed that. Also- it wasn't her lying. Small point, but still. Attribution is so important, isn't it?
3. As I explained to you before, I'm not partisan. I tried to explain the whole thing about polling, Bayesian predictions, and my own personal desire that facts get recounted instead of partisan BS. I'd rather Clinton didn't win- but I may end up voting for her over some of the current GOP candidates. We'll see. It's choosing between the evil of lessers. On the other hand, at least I take some small comfort in not projecting my personal "pathetic obfuscations and untruths" on to other people- so there's that, I guess.

Also? I don't seek out law discussion boards to rant about my personal and political insecurities. So I also have that working for me.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: October 29, 2015, 07:27:01 AM »
I watched hillary clinton's testimony about benghazi and think that it should have been held in private and not a public session just like all of the others.  And,  get depositions privately.  This should not have been done before the cameras, since, number one it has been a bone of contention for democrats who claim that the whole thing is fabricated to make clinton look foolish or incompetent so that it affects her ability to run for office. It has been a bone of contention for Republicans in that Americans had been killed in an attack and repeated security  requests went unattended by someone.  Also,  someone began an idiotic rumor that a YouTube video provoked an obvious, calculated military attack.

I'm an independent and some of us dont care which party is in power--- we look at the lowest common denominator.  Occam's razor, so to speak.  A. Security requests were not heeded but the system failed and perhaos not one individual is to blame.   The buck stops with the one at the top--that would be Clinton-- but she doesn't subscribe to that whole  heartedly since she still seeks higher office.  She admits to the letters and the dictionary meaning of the word "responsibility" and that is fine, too because she was not hands on responsible for the lack of security.

  But her email to her daughter marked against her words vibrating over the metal caskets of our murdered Americans into the ears of Chris Stevens mother and father and the other family members also SHAMEFULLY RESONATES with this Independent as hollow, cold, uncaring, and sinister.

Let me see. Your major point is that when you are confronted with information you don't like, your reaction is that it shouldn't have been public. I understand that cognitive dissonance is a problem we all have to face, but this may take the cake. One might just as easily observe that given the number of one-sided leaks to come from the Committee (many of which are later retracted), it is fascinating to see how poorly the public sessions go. It is also been interesting to observe that the GOP prefers to keep matters, depositions, and other issues secret. Because this has nothing to do with getting the truth- but just generating popcorn for the true believers. That's the problem with politics today.

Also, "someone" didn't start an idiotic rumor regarding the Youtube video. As you would know, if you had been following the matter, there were numerous demonstrations throughout the Middle East (check out Egypt) due to the Youtube video. It was originally believed that Benghazi was a part of that, however, the original points by the State Department explicitly stated that terrorism was a possibility- this was edited out by the CIA. This has been found by ... what, the last 11 or 12 Benghazi investigations?

I am also curious as to how you, personally, ascribe responsibility, given that the head of State doesn't micromanage every single embassy (and proto-embassy) in the World (nor should the head). Was George W. Bush responsible for Sept. 11? For anthrax? Was Clinton responsible for the prior WTC bombing? Was Reagan responsible for the death of the Marines in Lebanon? Isn't Benghazi, really, Obama's fault (heh, THANKS OBAMA!).

I read this great article, by Ben Shapiro, which while I don't agree with all of it, the tone, however of the piece is dead on reflective of Clintons character . 

You had me at Ben Shaprio. As I said before, after a while, the fault ins't with the liars- that's what they do. The fault is with the people who keep lapping up the lies. When people keep saying, "Why do we have these politicians?" the fingers they should be pointing should be directed at themselves- because you are the people that lap up what they are telling you.

Garbage in, garbage out.

My last post was largely about transferring, on reread I see you want to dropout and then reapply.
Did you try BEFORE going to that school? Imagine that uphill battle PLUS explaining WHY you DROPPED OUT.
Seems doable but stupid to me. I feel a huge case of the "I am going to get bad grades but it is THEIR fault because THEY are stupid (not me never me)......."
Maybe you should just quit and stay quit kid.

Yeah, but no. 1) I'm part-time; 2) I have a B average so far, and the material is not hardly the problem. That being said, with respect, your assumption that this is about possible poor grades is wholly incorrect. I just genuinely hate it here.

I would like to provide helpful advice, but I'm not sure how to help. For starters, I don't know how you would know your grades. At the law schools I am familiar with, students do not know their grades until a few weeks into the second semester. I didn't know my first semester grades until nearly February.

Second, you haven't identified *why* you hate it. Your classmates? The material? The teachers? The location? What? Very few people love law school their first year. To the extent that they like it, it's because they are learning while they are working themselves to death. You have to be more specific. Unless you can identify what it is, specifically, you don't like, no one can help you understand if things would get better.

Finally, I don't think you understand the difference between dropping out and re-applying, as opposed to doing your best and trying to transfer. IME (which is anecdotal, not statistical), I have not known any 1L dropouts that re-applied successfully to another school within a year. Your experience may be different- but given that you've described your school as provisionally accredited and you've only stated your reason for dropping out as "hating it" I'm not sure that will be looked on favorably.

Yea if this is true I don't know if an online law school board is the best place to post allegations of this nature.

I didn't want to wade into this, since the whole thing seemed a little ... off (just look at the story), but apparently there are issues with this. The individual referenced has had a cyberstalker set up a bizarre Yelp account, pinterest account, and a twitter account, and has repeated this exact same post on multiple forums. The post on reddit was pulled down because the facts were ... not correct.

Someone has also attempted to defame the individual's son.

Now, I have no personal knowledge of these events, but this seems ... way weird. It would appear that there is a concerted effort to do something bad, here, and this post is part of it.

Current Law Students / Re: Would This Be A Helpful Website?
« on: October 28, 2015, 08:55:25 AM »
I am in the process of designing a website for law students and lawyers looking for a jobs at law firms. The site would basically list user names of users and (1) tier of school they attended, (2) rank at that school, (3) firms they applied to, (4) whether they received a callback, (5) whether they received an offer, and (6) offered salary if they received an offer. You could then search by school or by firm to see comparable users and who obtained what types of jobs.

I am just trying to gauge some interest before I put in the time and effort here.

This would be an excellent resource, if you could pull it off. Lawschoolnumbers was amazing for applications- and the job process is so much more difficult. However, here's the various problems.

1. Confidentiality. How are you going to build that trust. People don't like to disclose these types of things, and people don't like to disclose failures. Also might be hard to ween out false submissions.
2. "Tier of school?" That's completely unhelpful. You need more granular data- but the more granular, the less anonymous. If you have exact school ranking, and exact school rank, then it's no longer anonymous. Too fluffy (tier of school, quartile of school ranking) and it's not helpful enough.
3. Salary is widely known for most large- and mid-size firms. This would be most helpful for the smaller firms.
4. Network effects- this website only becomes useful as more people use it.

Just spitballing here- if you can pull this off, it would be amazing. In addition, if you can make it a viable property, someone will want to buy it.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: October 28, 2015, 07:33:48 AM »
Chewbacca for President 2016!

Chewie is fine. But I'm all in for Emperor Palpatine.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 53