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 ... 28 29 30 31 32  34 35 36 37 38 ... 55
« on: September 13, 2012, 12:34:15 PM »
Be careful about putting too much stock in sub-genre rankings, I'm not convinced that they carry much weight. A few schools might have an awesome reputation for international law, but outside of those top few programs the rankings really don't mean too much. International law is an incredibly competitive field and is mostly controlled by megafirms and federal/international agencies. Those places tend to be very conscious of academic pedigrees, and your best bet is to simply attend the highest ranked school you can get into, period.
I usually advise people not to get too caught up in the rankings scheme, but there are exceptions, and international law is one. An attorney with a J.D. from Columbia, for example, will probably have a much better chance getting hired by one of those agencies versus a J.D. from a non-elite school with a higher ranked international law program. In part this is because such "programs" usually only consist of five or six classes, and maybe some internship opportunities.
Here's a real world example of what I'm talking about: Lewis & Clark and Vermont Law School both have ranked programs in envrironmental law. Do you think that biglaw environmental sections in NY and LA therefore consider Lewis & Clark/Vermont grads on an equal footing with, say, Duke or Penn grads?
I think lots of people attend a school based on a specialty ranking an end up not working in that field at all. It's a complex decision and involves lots of different aspects of your life: long term goals, short term goals, finances, etc. Do some research on the international law field, get a feel for what's required, and go from there.
« on: September 12, 2012, 09:48:55 PM »
Honestly, I don't know if you should go to law school if you can't get into a tier 1 or 2.
The applicability of such a broad statement is dependent on the OP's goals. Depending on those goals, I don't think that any
T1/T2 is necessarily a better choice than any
T3/T4. For example, if the OP wanted to live and work in Los Angeles, they'd probably be better off going to Southwestern (T3) than the University of Georgia (T1). The opportunities for internships and clerkships in LA are going to much better for the SW student. OTOH, if that same applicant was trying to decide between SW and UCLA, that's a different story.
So, I think it's important to understand that very few T1 (and zero T2) schools are considered so elite that a graduate can rely on his/her pedigree alone to get a job. Plenty of T1 schools will not provide a graduate with any meaningful edge outside of their immediate geographic region. Again, depending on the OP's specific goals, a local T3/T4 may be a better choice than a non-elite T1. (Especially if a scholarship is involved). There are plenty of T3/T4 schools that have solid local reputations and can prepare the OP for a successful career.
Unless you have some serious experience/qualifications in a specialty, you'll likely be beat out for jobs by tier 1 or 2 graduates every time.
In my experience, the T1 grads and T3/T4 grads are rarely competing for the same jobs. The UCLA grads, for example, are trying to get into big firms and federal agencies, and the local T4 grads are going for small firms and local government jobs. The exceptions might be the local DA/PD offices, which seem to attract everyone. I think it's a bit of a fiction that these groups are in direct competition with each other.
« on: September 12, 2012, 05:57:51 PM »
I also wanted to write that the topics didn't spark my interest, but I don't know if I should include that.
In my opinion, you should absolutely, positively not include that. Law school is often incredibly boring, and you will be expected to devote huge amounts of time to learning very dry subjects like civ pro, property, and wills & trusts. Trust me, most of the topics in law school won't spark your interest either, and the admissions committee knows this. The best possible way to overcome a 2.74 GPA is not with an addendum, but with a high LSAT score.
If your LSAT is sufficiently high, the addendum won't even be necessary.
Any addendum that you write will only be a small factor in the admissions process, and will probably only get glanced over. Those types of things are often most useful as tie breakers, assuming that you're on the cusp of admit/no admit. Law school admission is a numbers game, and if your GPA is below a school's median then you need a higher than average LSAT to compensate. If you don't have an LSAT score yet, start studying and get as much prep as possible. For the purposes of law school admission a 2.74 is relatively low, but it's not fatal. You can still get into plenty of good schools if you score high on the LSAT.
If you're still in college, try to take classes that will allow you to maximize your GPA. Law schools don't seem to care about the content of classes too much, just the grades. If you do end up writing an addendum, just be entirely honest. Explain that you had to work during college, and that you've learned from that experience how to better manage your time and priorities.
Do you know which schools you're interested in?
« on: September 10, 2012, 12:03:23 AM »
No idea what a SCALE is, its 4 years for DL California law schools. Can't imagine anyone passing the bar with 2 years.
Southwestern has a program called SCALE. The acronym stands for something-something Accelerated Legal Education, and you get a J.D. in two years by taking extra heavy courseloads all year and during summers. I think it's a more selective program, and isn't open to all SW students.
As I have said before, the best candidate for a DL law school is someone already working in the legal system with a phenomenal memory who can't attend a regular law school.
I completely agree. For a highly motivated, smart, disciplined person DL is probably a great format. I think that a lot of people think that they possess those qualities, but don't, and thus the high attrition rates.
« on: September 09, 2012, 05:15:37 PM »
On campus is easier, for one main reason (no fxbx) even ABA grads who sit it fail it the majority of the time. That alone makes it easier.
I'm not debating whether one is "harder" or one is "easier". Those are qualitative assessements and are subject to individual opinion. DL may be harder, I don't know. I'm taking issue with several specific claims made by the poster, which I've seen repeated elsewhere. The fact that most ABA students who take the FYLSE fail is not surprising, since the only ones who have to take it are those that failed out of law school and are seeking readmission.
The first claim, that "everybody pretty much passes", is objectively verifiable nonesense. Especially among T4s it not uncommon to have a 20-30% academic attrition rate. Clearly, everybody does not pass.
The second claim, that tests are open book and you don't have to show up for class, probably varies from school to school. I've never heard of any law school, however, where open book tests were the norm. I'd be willing to bet that at the vast majority of ABA, state accredited, and DL law schools students take closed book, difficult exams.
And yes, many "Top" lawschools are either no exam, all open book, and a P/F grade scale.
Can you provide one example of a top law school, or any law school, that has no exams or all open book? Even if one exists, I think you'd have to admit that it's the exception, not the rule. Berkeley is the only law school I'm aware of that grades High Pass/Pass/Low Pass/No Pass.
Lastly, I've never heard of anyone graduating in two years except from the SCALE program at Southwestern. Again, even if a few students do manage to graduate in years, you can't say that it's common as the OP implies.
« on: September 07, 2012, 06:20:41 PM »
I think brick and morter law school is easier. Although I have not attended one, I heard that everybody pretty much passes and they have open book tests and you do not even have to attend class for the lectures. You just have to show up for the open book tests. You can also take classes though the summer and get it over with in 2 years insted of the 4 years that online law school makes us do.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I've come across this same sentiment from other posters and had to comment. Is this a commonly held belief among DL students? Who is telling you guys this nonesense?
I can't speak for every brick and mortar grad, but that description is not even remotely close to what I experienced. Everybody at my school was a stressed out basket case (especially during 1L) when exams rolled around. I never took a single open book test during law school, and all of my exams, without exception, were demanding. My school also had a mandatory attendance policy, only three absences were permitted, and you could be marked absent for being unprepared.
Further, everybody definitely did not pass. The academic attrition rate at my school was usually around 4-6%, but a larger percentage could fail a single class without being dismissed. Lastly, I have never heard of anyone taking extra classes and graduating in two years. Southwestern has the SCALE program which is two years long, but that's unique. I believe my school limited summer school to six credits for full-timers, nine for part-timers.
« on: September 06, 2012, 03:25:24 PM »
All lawyers are not created equal and my experience is that you better be ready to start at the very bottom with a DL Degree - solo practice with very few lawyers willing to mentor till you prove yourself. This involves taking cases others won't touch with a ten foot pole. In California this means Social Security, Workers Comp, never ending cutody disputes, parole hearings and misdemeanors.so basicly the legal internships that the rest of us do while in law school.
Yeah, except that unlike a law school internship your ability to pay rent and buy food depends on getting paid from these cases. Not an easy task.
« on: September 06, 2012, 03:20:12 PM »
They're not breaking any laws.
« on: September 06, 2012, 03:18:32 PM »
Sorry, I completely missed the topic. Try Powerscore. Also, if possible, I'd recommend a prep course. I took Kaplan and found it more effective than studying on my own.
« on: September 06, 2012, 02:04:50 PM »
It's a really personal choice based on your learning style, but I liked Examples & Explanations. They put the law into context, as opposed to just providing you with a schematic diagram like many commercial outlines do.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32  34 35 36 37 38 ... 55