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 - Maintain FL 350
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 66
« on: July 15, 2014, 04:59:17 PM »
Congratulations, FSU has a good regional reputation and the debt won't be too bad (comparatively).
I used to be on the other camp on this, but you know what, debt sucks.
If you can get into any Michigan school other than cooley odds are you have a 160 lsat. That is a free ride at cooley. Take the zero debt.
Employers may laugh at the degree, but you will have a spotless creditscore.
Seriously. I really don't think the average 0L has any idea what it means to be $150,000 in debt, or how low the chances are of scoring a high paying Biglaw job as a new graduate.
The fact is, the vast majority of even T1 law grads will not be making all that much more than their T3-T4 counterparts to start. I know tons of T1 grads who work at small firms and govt offices and are saddled with huge debt. Several of them have told me that they wish they had just taken a full ride another school.
« on: July 11, 2014, 10:02:39 PM »
As long as the school is upfront and honest about the curve and attrition, I don't really have a problem with it. If the school is misleading or doesn't disclose its policies, that's completely different.
One way to look at T4 attrition, however, is that these schools are offering people who wouldn't otherwise have the chance to attend law school a shot at being a lawyer. Once the student matriculates, it's up to them to make the grades. I have no problem saying "You didn't get in anywhere else and we'll take a chance on you, but you've got to do your part."
The school is going to attrite the lowest performers in order to protect bar pass rates, and this should be clearly explained to the students at the start.
Attrition rates are easy to find, and prospective students should take the time to research this kind of stuff.
« on: July 09, 2014, 03:46:36 PM »
I don't think the stats are lying, I just think you have to understand how they're derived in order to make sense of them.
For example, my class graduated in May and began immediately preparing for the July bar exam. No one was looking for a job between May and August. Bar exam results are not released until November, and most grads aren't very employable until they have a license to practice law. So when the employment surveys were sent out in January, people had only had 7 or 8 weeks to really look for a job. As a result, the employment stats didn't look too good. I can't remember exactly, but I think something like 60-70% were employed as attorneys.
Two years later, I'd say it's close to 100%.
Not all attorneys are making big money, but they aren't exactly the working poor either. Based on purely anecdotal evidence I'd say that most attorneys I know/work with who have 10+ years experience are earning an upper middle class income. A few are rich, and I don't really know any who are struggling. Again, I'm talking about lawyers with experience, not new grads.
« on: July 09, 2014, 12:27:25 PM »
Troll? Maybe. I'll answer anyway, maybe someone will find the information useful.
Yes, the legal job market is tight but plenty of law grads find decent employment. Your first job straight out of law school may not be so great, but as Citylaw said it gets much better after you have a couple of years' experience under your belt.
Employment statistics have to be viewed in context. They are usually a snapshot taken nine months after law school graduation, when most grads have only just passed the bar a couple of months earlier and are looking for work. It's not a very good metric for gauging long term prospects.
I graduated in 2012 from a non-elite law school in a very crowded market (CA). Two years after graduation, the vast majority of my classmates are gainfully employed as attorneys. Some are with big firms making big money, some are prosecutors and public defenders, and some are solo practitioners.
If someone is a disciplined, motivated, and knows how to make connections they can absolutely have a successful career even if they don't graduate from Harvard. However, if someone is unrealistic, entitled, and doesn't know how to hustle they're going to have a hard time finding a job. I would imagine that this is true for all fields, not just law.
« on: July 06, 2014, 11:14:20 PM »
You need to think about where you want to live after law school, because your employment opportunities are going to be very different depending on which school you attend. None of these are elite schools which are going to land you a job based on pedigree, and you'll most likely end up working in the immediate geographical region.
Really think about this, because it's going to have a big impact on your future. When you're looking at regional/local schools, local reputation and connections matter more than national rankings. Don't get too caught up in rankings at this level, look for a good school in an area in which you would be willing to stay.
As far as the MA in Intl Relations, it may or may not be worth the expense depending on what you want to do. Big firms, NGOs, and intl organizations (which dominate the intl law field) will want an elite pedigree. Competition for those jobs is intense, and the applicants have amazing credentials. Keep that in mind before dropping tens of thousands on an MA.
« on: July 02, 2014, 01:32:30 PM »
I think the averages provided by CA Law Dean are a better indication of MCL's student body than whatever the minimum acceptable standard is.
For example, ABA schools don't necessarily require a bachelor's degree (I think 90 units is minimally acceptable at some ABA schools), and there is no official minimum LSAT score. However, an applicant without a degree and a 140 LSAT is not going to stand chance at the vast majority of schools.
I'm sure that MCL has some minimum acceptable standard, but that most admitted students are qualified beyond that standard. I'm also pretty sure that the LSAT is required for CA accredited schools.
« on: June 23, 2014, 06:52:25 PM »
It depends, and you'll have to check with the California state bar to find out.
California does allow LL.B holders from the UK to sit for the California bar, but there are some additional requirements. I think you have to be admitted in the UK and have a certain number of years of experience, for example.
An LL.B holder from another country, however, like India or Pakistan might not qualify without first obtaining a U.S. LL.M. I'm not sure what you mean by "two year LL.B". If you mean that the degree was only a two year program, I doubt if California would accept it without and LL.M. Again, check with the California bar, as they can give you the best information.
« on: June 19, 2014, 04:20:06 PM »
There are a ton of threads on here which discuss the impact of rankings. I would take a look at some of those.
But to address your question specifically, WF ranks #31 and FSU ranks #45. Both have good regional/local reputations, but neither is an elite institution. Whichever one you choose, you won't really be able to rely on your pedigree to land a job the way you would if you attended Harvard or Yale.
I don't live in south Florida, but I doubt if most employers are going to give a serious edge to a WF grad over an FSU grad based on rankings. Between these two schools, you should focus on which one has the best alumni connections and internship opportunities in south Florida. The ability to make personal connections within the local legal market will probably matter a lot more than the school's specific rank.
You should also be looking at U Miami, Florida Intl, and Univ of Florida.
As far as OSU, I don't think that would be a very good option if you intend to live in south Florida. It will be very difficult to gain internships and make connections if you're in Columbus, and I doubt if many Florida law firms recruit on campus.
When you're talking about non-elite schools things like location, alumni connections and local reputation matter a lot more than national rankings. Be sure to take those things into consideration along with rankings.
« on: June 19, 2014, 01:49:57 AM »
It was private free speech that became public.
I think the NBA franchise agreement allows for a forced sale if the owner's actions damage the league's image or something like that. I don't remember the exact words they used.
I'm sure the NBA will argue that since 85% of the players and a huge portion of the fan base are black, that Sterling's continued presence damages the league.
The whole thing is stupid. Sterling is a racist jerk, but the woman who recorded him seems pretty shifty. I also love how everybody at the NBA is full of faux righteous indignation. Apparently his views were pretty widely known, but as long as he was quiet no one cared.
I do think Mark Cuban had a good point. Do we really want to start punishing people for their privately held views? I think they can, legally, but should they? Regardless of whether his views are despicable, I don't like the idea of "thought police".
« on: June 18, 2014, 12:13:35 PM »
Franchises have all sorts of requirements and covenants that most business contracts don't.
If you buy a McDonald's franchise you have to buy all the food from McDonald's (even if you can get it cheaper somewhere else), put up all of the seasonal promotional materials they send you, they get to decide where the store goes so as to avoid competition with existing franchises, and you have to keep the place up with general corporate standards.
Even with all those requirements people are still falling over themselves to buy McDonald's franchises because they're so profitable. Same thing with the NBA.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 66