Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - Eugene Young

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 55
101
Well I honestly want a change of career and think law school is the right move for me. A PhD is a very versatile degree; top consulting firms recruit at MIT every year (i.e-McKinsey & Co.) although it is not the typical career path. Don't want to be in hardcore science anymore. But what's so good about Yale law?

Understood, but personally I would try to change that "think" to a "know" before embarking on this journey. Obviously you're used to rigorous study based on your background; in fact, you may very well find law school to be less rigorous than your program at MIT. But if you're certain you want to be a lawyer or want a JD, then by all means, go for it. My thing is just don't go to law school by default. Too much of a financial and emotional investment for something you're not 110% committed to IMO.

I'll let Alci tell you what's so great about Yale.

102
chances at HLS with 3.77 from MIT with 174?
See answer to Docesq.

103
Isn't Yale a reach with a 3.3 UGPA?

Not when you have a 172 LSAT and a Ph.d from MIT in biochemistry. Which actually now to me begs the question, "Why law school?" Seems like you'd be set in biochem as a researcher or teaching somewhere.
Hmm...I'm obviously no Yale expert, but I thought that the lowest GPA in the 2008 entering class was a 3.54?

Reread the bolded.

104
Isn't Yale a reach with a 3.3 UGPA?

Not when you have a 172 LSAT and a Ph.d from MIT in biochemistry. Which actually now to me begs the question, "Why law school?" Seems like you'd be set in biochem as a researcher or teaching somewhere.

105
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Sample Contracts Exam
« on: November 27, 2008, 09:59:33 PM »
S probably has a promissory estoppel claim if you find there's no K. L would raise a SOF claim as a defense if there's found to be a K b/c K can't be performed in a year. S could come back with an SOF exception b/c L undertook partial performance when they made timely payments for 10 years with the correct amount. S would also point to the letter as irrevocably referrable evidence of their agreement. Obviously, you need to analyze whether there was a K first before you start addressing the above. You also need to raise the enforceable agreement issue before you address the P/E  and SOF claims. I would approach it like this:

Is there a K b/w S&L?
A. Offer (IRAC)
B. Acceptance (IRAC)
C. Consideration (IRAC)

If you conclude there's no K, move to P/E, then damages if P/E found.
If you conclude there is a K, move to damages.
I would address both possibilities.

Then I would raise L's defenses.
SOF (IRAC)
Then I would hit a C/A for S with what I mentioned above.
Go through an enforceble agreement analysis also.

There may be other stuff, but that's off the top of my head. Also, I'm a 1L who's yet to take an exam, so take everything I just said with a grain of salt.

106
General Board / Re: Stanford Law Exam
« on: November 26, 2008, 08:11:32 PM »
never mind, found it.

107
General Board / Stanford Law Exam
« on: November 26, 2008, 07:57:39 PM »
Anyone have the link for Stanford's model exam answers? I just finished an exam and I want to compare mine with the model answer. I can't find the link I snatched it from. For all you smart asses, I already googled it several times. It's a Contracts I exam from Jan 11, 2002. Professor Radin, Section 5.

Thanks in advance

108
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: November 26, 2008, 04:53:15 PM »
Yeah that's what people don't seem to understand...the last Democratic president before Clinton was Carter.  So unless you want some old fogies or people with no governmental experience (or republicans), then Obama's going to have to put ex-Clinton people in the leadership positions.  Of course, he can fill the lower ranks with new people and eventually start moving them up, but that's going to take a while.  I predict fewer Clinton ties in his (knock on wood) second term.  And the next dem president will have a bunch of ex-Obama people.  It's just how the game works.

TITCR. A lot of political romantics and neophytes think he can bring in a whole new regime. Doesn't work like that in the real world. And as he alluded to in the press conference, the buck stops with him.

109
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: November 25, 2008, 02:48:20 PM »


Disagree on this one...hil would be perfect for SCOTUS,because she couldn't run for office anymore. She definitely would be a check on the scalia-roberts-thomas crew. But she has no experience as a federal judge. Although, arguably not a pre-req since Thomas didn't have one either really.

As I recall, even though I believe he clerked, the late Chief Justice Rhenquist had ZERO experience on the bench.



That's why I included the bolded. If there's one thing I learned in law school, it's to never make an absolute assertion. Sands, you're from Kansas, you should have known the Lincoln-Douglas question. The whole rivalry with Mizzou has its historical grounds in the dispute over slavery in the Kansas territory. Ya slipp


Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Kansas came in as a free state while Mizzou came in as a slave state. But I missed the question because I had no idea what Lincoln and Douglas debated about exactly but I knew that the civil war was fought over the south's succession from the union, and not necessarily because of slavery, which was answer C. So in other words, I took a SWAG and missed.

Completely guessed correctly on the monkey trial and on the plato, socrates, aristotle question. Couldn't even take a SWAG on those; just took a WAG.


 

missouri came in with maine.  hence, "missouri compromise" of 1820 and jefferson's "firebell in night."  kansas came much later.

I'm not talking about the missouri compromise. I'm talking about the traditional rivalry that my home state has had with Missouri ever since it came into the union as a free state.  We have a looooooooooooooooooong f*cking rivalry between our two states. It still continues today on many different fronts.   Trust me. I lived there.

Exactly. Rat bastard Jayhawks.

110
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: November 24, 2008, 10:39:39 PM »


Disagree on this one...hil would be perfect for SCOTUS,because she couldn't run for office anymore. She definitely would be a check on the scalia-roberts-thomas crew. But she has no experience as a federal judge. Although, arguably not a pre-req since Thomas didn't have one either really.

As I recall, even though I believe he clerked, the late Chief Justice Rhenquist had ZERO experience on the bench.



That's why I included the bolded. If there's one thing I learned in law school, it's to never make an absolute assertion. Sands, you're from Kansas, you should have known the Lincoln-Douglas question. The whole rivalry with Mizzou has its historical grounds in the dispute over slavery in the Kansas territory. Ya slipp

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 55