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 - 245

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 102
21
Disclaimer: I guess it depends on the students you happen to meet at the particular ASW.  I met some really cool and very happy students at CLS and YLS, and not so many at HLS.  You might have met a few not so happy ones at CLS??

I was talking at Jadecrane at the Stanford ASW and she also mentioned that she met a lot of happy students at HLS, so everyone's experience really can be different.

Lyquidmyrrrh-- We should hang out before you move!  :)

22
Congrats on the Harvard acceptance!!!

23
Yeah, I did e-mail him, and we chatted.  The "interview" was really an interview in name only...don't know if that's good or bad.  Mike, what were your HLS impressions?  Haha

I liked Harvard a lot. :)  The school has a "big city feel" (to steal Dean Kagan's words) and it has its own law school campus, which is quite nice.  Classes weren't too big, people were generally nice, professors seemed really down to earth, and of course, the intellectual and professional opportunities are pretty much limitless.  I didn't get the sense that HLS students were quite as happy as the students at Y/S or Columbia, but I think, all things considered, Harvard is a great opportunity.  So are you gonna accept it when TStock calls again???

24
Minority Topics / Re: LGBT Thread for Fall 2007 Cycle
« on: May 11, 2007, 01:18:56 PM »
Thanks, Absy!  BTW, it was nice meeting you at the HLS student fair back in March!  Were you able to sign up for the LGBT mailing list?

25
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« on: May 11, 2007, 12:49:24 PM »
Cross-admits will often prefer Harvard and Yale over Stanford simply because they're east-coast schools, and the entire legal business is biased towards the east coast. This is nothing new, and a quick look at LSN numbers also confirm that cross-admits more often than not chose HY over S. That doesn't take anything away from Stanford in terms of quality, it's an amazing law school, but studying on the east coast does have some benefits, such as easier access to a majority of future employers etc.

I can see how this is true, especially with regards to Yale trumping Stanford for cross-admits.  I agree that the legal profession has an East Coast bias, and most law students (especially the ones who post on LSD) make that a big factor in their law school decision.  However, I disagree with the previous poster that this is necessarily an issue of yield protection. 

Stanford has an extremely small class and, like the University of Chicago or any other small school, could easily be in danger of over-enrolling.  The class size has been pretty stable at about 170-175, but I assume this is because of the school's use of the waitlist.  At Yale, which has a much higher yield and a smaller waitlist, class size has fluctuated from 180-200--a fluctuation that, for most schools, would put a strain on resources.

BTW, Thanks, goalie!  I have actually heard from someone in one top law school's administration that Stanford does lose the battle with Yale (only a handful of cross-admits go to Stanford) but with Harvard, it's not as clear cut.

26
Just talked to Dean Stock.  It was rather anticlimactic.  Phone call lasted about a minute and he asked me what kind of law I wanted to practice and how likely it was that I'd come if offered admission.

(I've gotta stop feverishly following this thread.)

Saja, how long between the e-mail and the call?

E-mail yesterday afternoon.  (I actually checked when I saw your post that you got an e-mail, because it's my school e-mail that I don't check as regularly.)  I said I'd be free today after 3.  He called before 3 and I missed it, and then again just now.

Good luck on your interview, Saja!  Back in November, a few people missed Toby Stock's call and then just called him back with caller ID, so you might want to try that?

27
Minority Topics / Re: LGBT Thread for Fall 2007 Cycle
« on: May 10, 2007, 05:22:29 PM »
MoFo = Morrison Foerreser--- a very lgbt friendly biglaw firm in SF.

Is there a list of LGBT-friendly law firms?  I've heard that Orrick is too, but I'm wondering what other LGBT-friendly law firms are out there.  Also, I don't think Orrick recruits at Lavender Law.

Mike-- Vault does a top 20 or top 50 ranking.  Havent heard anything about how reliable it is but at least its a good starting point. 

Hope to meet you at Lavender next year!  Sounds like a good networking opportunity if nothing else. I wonder how many people get call backs/offers from firms at lavender

Thanks, Bouzie!  I'll definitely try to be there for next year's conference.  We can try for an LSD get-together.  The career fair is a good opportunity, but I don't think that you will need it in order to get an interview. UMich students have more than enough job opportunities. :)  It seems like the timing of Lavender Law makes it a bit inconvenient: 1Ls who attend can't give out their resumes yet, but 2Ls will most likely have already gone through OCI by the time the conference rolls around.  Maybe it's geared towards those students who either didn't have much success with OCI or are looking for additional contacts and opportunities?  Nevertheless, it sounds like a lot of fun.

28
Minority Topics / Re: LGBT Thread for Fall 2007 Cycle
« on: May 10, 2007, 03:40:33 PM »
MoFo = Morrison Foerreser--- a very lgbt friendly biglaw firm in SF.

Is there a list of LGBT-friendly law firms?  I've heard that Orrick is too, but I'm wondering what other LGBT-friendly law firms are out there.  Also, I don't think Orrick recruits at Lavender Law.

29
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« on: May 10, 2007, 02:14:42 PM »
Well, LSN only gives 22 rejections of people with 170+/3.8+ that's not really a lot I think. Speculating on what got them rejected is very hypothetical, I could imagine they are trying to balance the type of undergrad degrees people come in with, so if there's too many English Lits with 3.95 they ding someone with good numbers etc. Anyway, I'm not the one that mentioned yield protection anyway :) My only opinion is that no 'normal' soft factors will get you into Stanford if you're lacking in either LSAT or UGPA, and based on LSN numbers there's really not a single acceptance that counter-proves that theory in my opinion. The sub-170s all have very good UGPAs, and the acceptances with a UGPA below 3.75 generally have very good LSATs, and most of them are also URMs.

I dont know, I guess I'm just seeing the numbers different than you are, but I can't really find a single profile (perhaps except "cutepug") that looks like a "normal ding" that has been accepted for somewhat unknown reasons.

Well, I agree with that point-- no "normal" soft factors are going to overcome low numbers.  A small, top-ranked school like Stanford (or Yale) can be selective enough that soft factors have be very strong to stand out from the crowd, especially if your numbers are weak.  However, I think that Stanford does use soft factors to differentiate between applicants, and not just at the 178+/3.9+ level. 

Also, I think that stuff like undergraduate majors, etc., ARE soft factors.  If Stanford rejected those 22 people because of their major or lack of work experience or because they didn't fit certain niches within the overall class profile, then I think that's "soft" rather than "hard" factors.


Edit: Sorry, I know that I'm belaboring the point here, but I guess a small part of me is clinging to the idea that I got accepted based on more than just my numbers. :)

30
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« on: May 10, 2007, 01:43:42 PM »
Approximately 2100 people scored 170+ on the 2006 LSATs. Approximately 490 people scored 175+. A quite considerable number of those opt for sub-top3 schools due to full rides etc. Quite a few of these people do not have the UGPA that Stanford places a very heavy focus on. About 450-500 of them choose Harvard. About 150 of them choose Yale. The fact that 20% of Stanford acecptances have sub 170 LSAT doesn't confirm leniency in regards to soft factors, it indicates their preference of UGPA. Could Stanford fill their class with 200 people with 170+ scores? Certainly. Can they fill their class with 200 people with 170+ and 3.9+ ? No, very likely not.

Of the people admitted to Stanford (based on LSN, and I'm not discrediting anyone as fake) with a LSAT score below 170, 3.83 is the weakest non-URM UGPA. That's pretty much exactly on Stanford's median and doesn't really leave room for any leniency based on anything but the numbers. You don't get in with either the LSAT or the UGPA, you get in with both. Could there be 3 or 4 people admitted that cured aids and world hunger, sure. Would even outstanding by normal definitions ECs get you in with sub-par numbers in even just one of the categories? Nope.


To me, this argument still doesn't explain why Stanford would reject people with top LSAT/GPA.  I see 22 people on LSN who were rejected with 170+/3.8+.  Many of those people were even accepted at other top schools, including Harvard and Yale.  Numerically, they made the cut, and it can't be yield protection, since they weren't waitlisted. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 102