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 11 ... 53
51
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: October 27, 2015, 09:00:14 AM »
If you can recognize the interest in a nixonian politician you don't belong in this discussion. There are plenty of other topics you can discuss on lsd.


Here's the funny thing- I do contribute to other conversations on LSD. And I have for years and year- pretty much since the board started. Because I did the whole "applying to law school, going to law school, working in BigLaw" type of thing. And it is my understanding that a board called "Law School Discussion" is primarily about law school, and discussions thereof.

You, near as I can tell, have only posted on this board regarding political topics. Which, you know, I suppose is fine and all, although there are probably at least one million more appropriate sites than that. That said, if you have actual substantive things to write about politics it would be nice. Instead of the same old tired things anyone can see in the comment threads of a local Idaho newspaper. In addition, when you are corrected on the legal issues you wish to bring up (which are few and far between, as opposed to your invariably incorrect "popcorn" predictions), it would be nice if you would drop them.

As was explained to you, the initial leaked reports that Clinton was being investigated were incorrect. That the FBI is conducting an investigation into the overall matter is correct, but she is not the target of an investigation; that was a retracted story. I realize that you don't have the time or energy to get these basic facts correct, even when it was explained to you over five weeks ago, but it is what it is.

And, as I explained to you before, I am not a fan of Clinton. I am not a fan of any of the people currently running. I do try to keep abreast of current events, and I do try to keep my opinions based on observable facts. You may find that you will be less disappointed with reality when you base your opinions on what is occurring, as opposed to what you want to believe.

If you want to dislike Clinton, more power to you. That's fine! Heck, if you want to rant and rave about how you dislike Clinton, go right ahead- you can certainly join others in doing so. But if you would like to use a law school discussion forum to rant and rave about politics, please expect some pushback when you are stating facts that aren't true. I will again refer you back to the prior discussion. That should've settled. I suggest going back to your popcorn.

52
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: October 27, 2015, 06:06:51 AM »
You are really a funny one. 

If you believe that no candidate is being investigated by the FBI that is fine. 
But the fact is that James Comey, the director of the FBI is following closely  the FBI  investigation of one particular candidate who is running for president.


No... I'm a serious one. This was explained to you back on, inter alia, August 18. This *was* a board for legal students and want-to-be legal students. There are 0Ls, law students, and legal practitioners who used this board at one point still ghosting here.

I have no problem with your bizarre political rants and opinions- after all, it helps me know what won't happen. But please stop spreading false "facts" that you've learned from some disreputable new site. There are devoted websites for that, where other misguided people will agree with you, and then you will be shocked when nothing happens, and then forget about it the next day. Oh, I forgot, the obligatory, BENGHAZI!!11!!!! *sigh*

53
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: October 26, 2015, 10:12:27 AM »
Lmao.

So, where am I wrong again?

Unless you csn prove the FBI are in holloween costumes concealing that they are really Republicans I will continue to enjoy the show.

I think it would be better to ask- where have you been right? You do understand, don't you, that every single one of your statements (pretty much) has been incorrect. Whether it has been a political prediction (fireworks at the Benghazi hearing! Biden will enter the race!) or whether it has been a factual recounting of events (didn't understand that the only candidate that was really under personal investigation had been Christie, didn't know the correct appellation of AUSAs, etc.).

I suggest, in the future, that you stop eating so much popcorn, and start trying to understand things independently of a) what you want to be true, and b) what people keep telling you is true.

And finally, again, I will reiterate- if you keep getting lied to, and are eager to keep swallowing the lies, that fault isn't  with the liars- it is with you.

54
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:51:49 AM »
Benghazi hearing, a mild and sad political drama.
I got more for later on that sour display.

In the meantime getting back to more important information I recall what
Mr. James Comey said to the chairman of the J.C.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully say that one Iím not going to comment on. As you know the FBI is working on a referral given to us by Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary Clintonís use of a private email server. As you also know about the FBI, we donít talk about our investigations while we do them. This is one Iím following very closely and get briefed on regularly.Ē

This is goooood stuff. I'm following it closely too, Mr. Comey.

I'm not sure how many football it will take, Charlie Brown, but keep on kicking. I will, again, point out that you have been repeatedly, and objectively, wrong about the fact which are pointed out. And you suppositions which are based on your desires (for example, that Biden will run, that this testimony would be awesome and popcorn-worthy) don't pan out.

At some point, you might want to ask yourself why. At a certain point, it's best not to blame others for fleecing you repeatedly- you have to ask yourself why you are so susceptible to being fleeced.

55
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: 2.05 GPA/163 LSAT?
« on: October 24, 2015, 07:13:25 AM »
What are my chances to being accepted? I'm a non-traditional student, so it is ideal for me to go to one of the night, part-time schools.

I was looking at Nashville School of Law as the tuition is only 5K a year. Geographically, I am not limited and willing to move.

My GPA can be explained, from when I first graduated high school over ten years ago, didn't take college seriously, changed my major three times, and didn't finish. Fast forward a decade, I went back to school retook numerous classes and finished school. Unfortunately it seems the cumulative GPA is what matters, which is a 2.05 and not the degree GPA which is a 2.90. I've also worked since I was 16 even through college, currently work as Parole Officer, and am considered a minority.

What is everyone's thoughts?

1. You are an URM (under-represented minority, in the lingo).
2. You are a splitter (your GPA and LSAT don't correlate).
3. You are non-trad (you took time off between UG and law school; more than a "gap year" or "travel abroad").

That's the lingo. Your chances are excellent. Yes, your GPA is incredibly low- but that's okay. There are some schools that will use a matrix to auto-deny you. There's nothing you can do about that. But your LSAT score, combined with URM, splitter, non-trad status will help immensely.

Brief anecdote- when I was applying to law schools, I was non-trad splitter. I listened to advice which unplayed my chances of getting into certain schools. As I have since learned, schools need to accept a certain amount of high-GPA (US News), but outside of those matrix boxes, they will look very favorably on non-trad splitters with high LSATs. Especially if they have been workin and succeeding since UG and have 1) an explanation and 2) signs of improvement (you do). More importantly, you are an URM, which will really help you at a lot of schools. Do not sell yourself short. Look at, inter alia, the historical records of schools at lawschoolnumbers.com of actual applicants.

Finally, you should really consider not doing the night-time course. I'm just mentioning that as an option. If you scored a 163 on the LSAT, and you are an URM, and you've been shown continual signs of improvment since UG, you may be able to open doors you weren't aware of. Just think about it.

56
Hi,

Flamers: buzz off.

I am a 1L at a toilet of a provisionally accredited law school. I got a 50% scholarship to ease the sting. Still, I am uber close to just withdrawing before we get too much further into the semester and trying my luck elsewhere. I don't know what kind of applicant that would make me at the next school, though. That is, would I be a transfer student or applying as a new student, since I didn't get any grades here where I am now???? Is it event possible? I mean, are there schools that admit students who dropped out first semester of 1L before any grades were issued?

Before you say just stay: I can't take it. The environment here is for the birds. I have tried. I am days away from pulling the plug on this little adventure, I only want to know what my options are if I go through with it.

Thanks in advance for the kindhearted lot of you who give feedback.   8)

There's not enough information here to give you a good response- specifically, why can't you take it? What is it about the environment that is "for the birds?"

The sad truth is that the first year curriculum at ABA (and provisionally-ABA) accredited schools is fairly standardized, and unless you explain what it is you find intolerable, it would be hard to advise you. Also, it would help if you explain why you attended that particular school- was it (relatively) low uGPA / low LSAT? Just the financial aid package? Just location?

The sad truth is that the generic advice, without more, that I would give to almost anyone in their first year anywhere, from Harvard to Cooley, is to stick it out. You made a decision, stick with it out, and consider transfer options if you do well. If you drop out now, it will be ... something ... that will be considered when re-applying to other schools. That you tried once and you failed.

Again, I might have better advice for you, but I don't fully understand your issues. Many (if not most!) 1Ls go through buyers remorse their first year. Some drop out. I'm not aware of any that dropped out and immediately applied, successfully, to another school.

57
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: 153 LSAT 3.7 GPA - What do I do now?
« on: October 23, 2015, 12:14:15 PM »
I appreciate the advice so far guys. Thank you so much.
I disagree very strongly with what was just posted. To reiterate, while I normally think retaking the LSAT doesn't help much, if you were consistently scoring higher on your practice exams by seven or more points, you should. This isn't about just getting into a school- this is about financial aid and scholarships.

A 153 won't get you the $ you would get. In addition to increasing your options (which you may, or may not, want), it will decrease your total cost of attendance. Now, this isn't a guarantee. It could just be that your practice exams were all wrong. But we are talking about a decision that could be worth six figures. That's worth the cost of the LSAT and the time.

Re-take.
If I am going to retake it... When should I be looking to do so? December is obviously the next test date but it would leave me with just over 6 weeks to prep. Taking it in February, on the other hand, means I have ample time to prep and ensure I am not thrown off again, but it also means I will be fighting for a smaller pool of spots and for little (if any) money. Which date makes the most sense? Is it possible to apply mid-November once I've finished up all the applications to get my decision in late December or early January, and then reapply with the second LSAT (if necessary) in March? Or is that not possible?

If, theoretically, I do get into DU, since it's outside of T1, is it even worth going? Or am I just digging myself into a hole I can't pay my way back out of? I suppose one more option is to take a gap year and retake the LSAT again next year with even more prep, but if that isn't necessary I'd rather avoid it. That said, if I really messed this up and I don't have time to fix it properly this admission cycle, I'm patient enough and have the resources to ensure I do this the right way. Still, I'm pretty scattered with the news and I really don't know what that "right way" is.

E: Citylaw answered some of these questions in a post while I was tying my response. Many thanks my friend.

There's a lot packed in there. If at all possible, I would re-take in December. Assuming everything you previously stated was correct, you don't need more time. You need to maximize a short amount of time. This isn't the Bar- it's the LSAT. Concentrate on logic games, don't stress. If you give yourself too much time (February), you won't use it efficiently. In addition, taking it in December would allow you to have a better idea of your scores (both immediately- how you felt after the exam, and the actual scores) when you apply. Definitely December.

I recommend against sending in one score if you are going to re-take the exam, and then sending in another number. This will help for admissions, but could hurt for scholarships. Again, this is assuming you are confident you will do the same, or better.

Outside of the T14, it doesn't really matter what the rankings are. DU is fine. Go to the school you get into that is where you want to practice, and offers the best financial package. Apply to a broad range of schools.

58
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: 153 LSAT 3.7 GPA - What do I do now?
« on: October 23, 2015, 10:21:17 AM »
First off congrats on taking the LSAT. I don't know how many people talk about it, but never actually take it.

Now that you have numbers what you do is apply to law school.  Furthermore, 153 is not a terrible score, but certainly not great either.  However, you can get into about 100 ABA schools with your numbers. https://officialguide.lsac.org/Release/UGPALSAT/UGPALSAT.aspx

Your numbers give you a strong shot at Denver College of Law as-is. (see the official guide)

I hate to break it to you, but odds are you will not get a 160+ on the LSAT. This is nothing against you, but that is the 80th percentile of college graduates that are smart and hard-working enough to even take the LSAT.  153 puts you in the top 40%, which is still pretty good.

I scored lower than a 160 on the LSAT, but graduated from law school, passed the bar, got a job etc. 

I think your experiencing is the reality check most OL's go through. With a 3.7 GPA it seems like you were a great student the star of the class, but in law school everyone was the star of the class in undergrad and law school is a different level.

153 is not great, not bad it is fine. When you enroll in law school everyone will think the LSAT was a fluke, but they will surely be in the top 10% of the class, but obviously 90% of them cannot be.

Next Steps:
Apply to law school with your current numbers and re-take the LSAT if you want. You have nothing to lose, but 153 will get you into law school and if you get a 160 on your retake then revaluate your applications, but odds are you will get around a 153 again.

Again, congrats on taking the LSAT and having the option to attend law school. Good luck in your legal career!

I disagree very strongly with what was just posted. To reiterate, while I normally think retaking the LSAT doesn't help much, if you were consistently scoring higher on your practice exams by seven or more points, you should. This isn't about just getting into a school- this is about financial aid and scholarships.

A 153 won't get you the $ you would get. In addition to increasing your options (which you may, or may not, want), it will decrease your total cost of attendance. Now, this isn't a guarantee. It could just be that your practice exams were all wrong. But we are talking about a decision that could be worth six figures. That's worth the cost of the LSAT and the time.

Re-take.

59
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: October 23, 2015, 07:02:52 AM »
Glad you took that last post of yours down.

Btw....biden getting ready to make a move. Yea or nay?

shutup child....................ther e happy. Go back to pretending to be an adult somewhere else.
You never even went to undergrad-seriously Admin BAN this troll. Its useless.


Dude, you really are losing it.  You don't seem to be friendly in the slightest? You make remarks about tokenism and hitler and you want me banned? Ok, yeah you sound pretty normal????

You are causing your own angst, my man.

Try to be nicer and understand that this political season we have a genuine fbi investigation into one of the candidates.  It hasn't been this entertaining since richard nixon was plugging for the presidency and his private emails (tapes)were discovered.  You have to at least understand that a cynical political wonk like myself finds this vastly, excruciatingly funny.

So, Biden gets in maybe this week? And hillary has to face the benghazi committee.  Political theatre at its finest.  I'm taping that shitt of sho'.   Not DVD, mind you. Tape, for slow rewind when she's caught in a Pinocchio binge.

Lots of popcorn.  And yes, butter.  Again.

I will briefly note, as I have previously, that it is important to separate desired outcomes from facts. For example, there is no FBI investigation of any candidate. But you knew this. Biden did not enter the race. And while the Benghazi committee certainly warranted popcorn, it likely wasn't for the reasons you hoped.

Any way, the sun will rise, the sun will set, and we will have an election next year.

60
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: 153 LSAT 3.7 GPA - What do I do now?
« on: October 23, 2015, 06:59:55 AM »
After getting back my unofficial LSAT score today I'm extremely disappointed to see I got a 153. After 4 months of prep I was testing in the high 150s and low 160s, but I had no idea how to do one of the logic games and that threw me off for half of the section following. That said, what do I do now? Should I retake and get closer to the 160 mark that I was bouncing around for months on end? Or do I just say screw it and apply? Where should I be looking? Obviously T30 are out of the question, but I was originally hoping to practice one day back in my home state of Colorado (Univ of Colorado or Univ of Denver for school). I have a 3.7 cumulative GPA and a 3.83 from my degree granting institution, and based off those numbers, I don't think I'll have a particularly tough time getting into DU, but it's a coin-toss to get into CU. I want to one day practice either criminal law or constitutional law. In my undergraduate studies, I have focused on classes about civil liberties and philosophy of law, so I believe I can write a solid personal statement about my passion for the topic, but I'm not sure what exactly the next step is.

Should I retake with a little over 6 weeks to prep? Or should I just apply and let the chips fall where they may? If I do apply now, other than CU and DU, where should I be looking to submit an application? I suppose I should also note that I do not have URM status. Thanks in advanced for the help

Briefly-

My usual advice is to not re-test on the LSAT, absent unusual circumstances. Here, however, you seem to have them. The difference between a 153 and a 161 is extreme when it comes admissions and financial aid. If you have consistently been scoring higher in practice exams, I would recommend re-taking it. Your options will be greater, and, more importantly, you may be able to get a much better scholarship at you local schools.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 53