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 - Maintain FL 350

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 103
Studying for the LSAT / Re: 162 to 170 before October LSAT?
« on: September 29, 2015, 09:26:37 AM »
Yes, I tend to agree on all three points.

The thing I wonder about is our inherent limitations, for lack of a better term. For example, a person could study all day everyday for a year, take a prep course, hire a tutor, etc., and still never break 170. For whatever reason, they have exhausted their intellectual and time management abilities at a level below 170.

So I suppose the trick is use the tools available to get as close to your full potential as possible, but to still recognize that at some point you are maxed out.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: September 22, 2015, 09:19:32 AM »
Sanders IS a Democrat and Hillary now could lose BOTH states to him.
If Clinton wants the nomination she has to win at least one of them.

Tick tick tick....plead the 5th!

So f Ing enjoyable.. And wow! Carly! Now that is a great female candidate out of the bix

Sanders is definitely giving her a run for her money, but there is no evidence that he will win any primary other than New Hampshire. He is consistently 10-12 points behind in Iowa, and there is no reason to assume that will change.

Think about this: let's say he wins NH and she wins IA. Then what? Is Sanders really going to pull off winning any other primary? Which ones? South Carolina?

No, Sanders is not likely to be the candidate. His ascendency demonstrates how unhappy with Clinton many Democrats are, and perhaps points to some inherent weaknesses in her overall candidacy. Nonetheless, she still has a far superior position when it comes to funding, organization, and even polling. Even though many are unhappy with her, she will still probably be the candidate.

At this point, I guarantee that Clinton's people are far less worried about Sanders than they are about the possibility of Biden entering the race and the general election. They are praying that the Republicans nominate someone like Trump or Ted Cruz (both highly unlikely).   

Studying for the LSAT / Re: 162 to 170 before October LSAT?
« on: September 18, 2015, 09:56:28 AM »
I wonder if there is any actual statistical data which indicates whether or retaking the LSAT results in higher scores?

I mean, obviously some people are going to score higher on a retake and others are going to score lower. But for those who score higher, I have to think that they did something different the second time. Maybe they modified their approach, took a prep class, dedicated more time to studying, whatever.

The reason I'm wondering about this is because I think a of people think that just the act of retaking the LSAT alone will result in a higher score. "I scored 160 this time, so if I study some more and retake I'll score 165 next time." But I'm not sure that doing the same study regimen a second time makes much difference. Again, I think you'd have to change it up and explore new angles in order to score higher. 

Current Law Students / Re: Are Lawyers Getting Dumber Aritcle?
« on: September 15, 2015, 02:36:37 PM »
Regarding Citylaw's comments on bar passage rates, I have heard (although I don't know if it's true) that this is what happened to Thomas Jefferson's bar pass rate in San Diego.

They constructed a new building in SD, and in order to pay for it increased the size of the incoming class. They admitted people with lower numbers in order to fill the class, and ended up having a couple of years of low bar pass rates. I think they were in the 35% range.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: 162 to 170 before October LSAT?
« on: September 13, 2015, 09:30:21 PM »
Without knowing you and your personal abilities, it's pretty much impossible for anyone here to determine whether or not you are capable of getting a 170. Because I don't know you, my comments are going to be fairly general. That said, keep this in mind:

We all have some inherent limitations. For example, no matter how hard I study I will always suck at math. Can I get better at math, and improve my mathematical abilities? Yes, but I'll probably never be in the top 5% of mathematicians no matter what.

When you talk about scoring 170, you're talking about scoring in the top 5%. In order to do better than 95% of the other people you've probably got to have a combination of inherent skills and effective studying. I mean, if all it took to score 170 was tons and tons of studying then lots of people would be scoring 170.

You probably can still raise your score, but by how much? I don't know. A score of 162-ish is good. It means you did better than something like 80% of the people who took the LSAT. I think most people do plateau at some point and are often disappointed with their scores. It's sort of an ego check.

Don't get fixated on a particular score. Focus on understanding the test as best as you possibly can, continue to study effectively, and you will probably get the highest score that you are capable of getting. 

Hi Maintain.

Would you say that, generally speaking, a statistically significant percentage of 0Ls matriculate admitting to an improper or unreasonable purpose in mind?

Trying to think of some examples.

I'm not sure I totally understand the question, but I think a lot of 0Ls simply don't know (1) what lawyers actually do, (2) what law school is actually like, and (3) how to distinguish between realistic and unrealistic goals.

For example, I've met a lot of 0Ls who say "I think I'd be great in law school because I really enjoy arguing." They think it's going to be a three year long version of their high school debate team. They don't understand the academic nature of a JD program.

I've also met 0Ls who have said things like "I'm going to get a joint JD/MBA because I really like business, and that way I can work in business and practice law on the side." Again, they just have no clue that establishing a practice, obtaining clients, and practicing law is something you can't do in your spare time. Or, they say things like "I'd like to work in human rights law at the U.N. or something", not understanding that those jobs don't typically go to 25 year olds fresh out of law school.

So, what I'm getting at is that there are a lot of 0Ls who see a law degree as a vaguely useful stepping stone to some kind of career, but who have not spent any time researching whether or not their notions are correct. Conversely, I don't think I've ever met a 0L who said "I'd like to work at a small firm drafting wills, defending DUIs and arranging child custody modifications", which is where most of them will end up. 

But going to law school with no vision or fundamental purpose for doing so that's a huge mistake. Law school isn't junior college, where students, especially those right out of high school, often flop from semester to semester with no idea why they're even there.  Law school demands focus and commitment. This requires having a goal in mind. Your goal doesn't have to be immutable, but it should be clear in your mind before you take the leap. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and money.

I agree completely. I get prospective law students asking me whether or not they should go  to law school all the time, as I'm sure we all do. My first question is always "Why do you want to go to law school? What are your goals?". It amazes me how many of them really don't know. They think a law degree is sort of a "good idea", or the "next logical step". Others think the JD will make them more marketable in other fields. I'm always surprised by how many don't actually want to be lawyers, and really don't have a particular goal in mind.

I don't think many law schools offer weekend programs, at least not where I live. My part time program was M-TH, usually 6-9, sometimes 6-10:30. That was pretty standard for all the part time programs I looked at. I don't remember seeing any weekend offerings. 

I can't speak to the Fleming's issue because I'm not familiar with program. I don't know if an older version is as good as a newer version. Maybe there are specific changes the school wants to address or something. Or, maybe not.

As far as textbooks, it's fairly common for professors to require you to buy their own book especially if it's an upper level class on some sort of specific topic like International Law or California Mediation and Arbitration, etc. I think it's less common for the first year classes, where pretty much everybody is just going to use Prosser on Torts for example.

Honestly if you think driving 4 hours each way, one day a week is a big deal. You are best to avoid the whole ordeal.

One day a week? Like Citylaw said, it is a big deal and would probably be four or five days a week, not just one.

As to the OP's question William & Mitchell an ABA Law School has been approved for tentative online law school.

I think the William Mitchell program is a hybrid of in-class and online instruction. The fact that they were already an established ABA school probably helped a lot, as opposed to an unaccredited online program trying to get ABA approval.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 103