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 ... 29 30 31 32 33  35 36 37 38 39 ... 85
« on: January 31, 2014, 03:43:49 PM »
I understand your point, but you still haven't provided anything to back it up. There is nothing in that article that supports your claim. Yes, students with crappy numbers will not receive scholarships and will have to pay full tuition while students with great numbers won't. Shocking!
I'll ask again, although I know you won't answer:
Do you have ANY evidence that law schools have scrapped diversity scholarships, or that diversity is not considered when awarding merit scholarships? If not, then your argument is baseless and should be disregarded.
« on: January 31, 2014, 03:42:44 AM »
Here's the evidence.
Take a look at LSN. An African American applicant, for example, with a 3.0-3.5/160-165 is likely to get a FULL scholarship to a prestigious Tier 1 school. I'll ask again, do you think the students reporting on LSN are lying?
Whether it's called a minority scholarship, a diversity scholarship or a merit scholarship is irrelevant. The money is there for students who qualify, and URM applicants can qualify with even moderate numbers. If you're talking about applicants whose numbers are too low to qualify for scholarships being "racially exploited", you're wrong. Law school attendance is voluntary and competitive, and no one is guaranteed a scholarship.
« on: January 30, 2014, 09:32:06 PM »
You need to contact your state bar to get the best answer. They may require certain documentation from doctors or other evidence that the issue is no longer a problem, and will not interfere with your ability to provide competent legal services.
Again, you should get that info straight from the state bar as they are the best source.
I asked because I'll be required to do 225 quarter credits to earn my first bachelor's degree (with three majors).
Is there any reason why you need three majors? For the purposes of law school admission you'd be better off with one major and a high GPA than three majors and a lower GPA.
« on: January 30, 2014, 02:25:35 AM »
Which schools, specifically? There are varying levels of difficulty.
Take a look at the admission grids on LSAC. Find your GPA/LSAT range, and it will show you how many applied and how many were accepted with your approximate numbers. This will give you a good idea as to your chances at a particular school.
« on: January 29, 2014, 12:28:26 PM »
I don't think poor result have anything to do with the applicable law on the individual bar exam, but it has a lot to do with the stress of adjusting to a new environment. When I was taking the California Bar I was freaking out, but I went to law school in San Francisco and had my friends, girlfriend, apartment, etc in San Francisco and it was somewhat comforting to have a support structure during that time.
Had I moved across the Country to New York and not known a soul, rushed into some random apartment, and knew nothing the stress of all those changes would have been very difficult to deal with and the results may have come out very differently. This is something I don't think many law students take into consideration when studying for a bar or choosing a law school.
Yes, I agree that it's definitely a factor but to what degree? The pass rates for many out of state schools in CA is really low, like 25-50% even for first tier schools. A lot of those students are actually from CA and are returning home after law school, so they do have a support network. But as you say, others don't.
I just wonder if CA law schools prepare students for the difficulty level they will face on the CA bar exam, whereas other states prepare students for their own level of difficulty? It would interesting to see the rates at which CA students pass/fail other states' bar exams. I've never taken another state's bar, but I know people who have. With a few exceptions (NY and TX), most of the people I've to felt that CA's bar was more difficult, and in some cases significantly so.
« on: January 29, 2014, 12:15:14 PM »
Hi Tom, I'll try to answer your questions.
1. LSAC will consider all grades earned, and you will have to provide actual transcripts from all institutions attended even if you took only one class there. So, no, I don't think you get a clean slate because all grades are factored into your GPA. On the other hand, if you get a 4.0 GPA from now on, that's obviously going to offset the lower grades.
I think you will have to disclose the suspension to LSAC, the law schools, and your state bar. You will likely have to write an addendum.
2. I'm not sure what you mean. All grades earned prior to obtaining your first bachelor's degree are counted.
3. As for LSAT prep, just do as much as you can between now and the actual test to keep yourself familiar with the material. Take a prep course if possible, and try to get in as much time as you can in the months leading up to the exam. You have lots of time, and I'd focus more right now on getting the highest possible GPA.
Hope that helps.
« on: January 28, 2014, 10:14:28 PM »
I think you're probably right Jonlevy, but doesn't that mean that the DL schools should be implementing somewhat more stringent admission standards?
« on: January 28, 2014, 03:53:27 PM »
Very interesting results.
I agree with livinglegend that personal motivation is a huge factor. But when I see the incredibly low pass rates of many of the unaccredited and CBE schools it makes me think that they are simply admitting too many people who should not be in law school. A significant number of unaccredited schools had zero first time passers, and that's after the FYLSE has weeded out quite a few. I don't know if the problem is with students, the program, or both but having consistently low pass rates indicates a problem.
I also think it's interesting that many lower ranked CA schools have significantly better pass rates than much higher ranked out of state schools. For example, La Verne beat schools like Boston College, Minnesota, and Notre Dame. Golden Gate beat American, ASU, and many others. Southwestern beat Vanderbilt!
I don't accept that this is necessarily due to the advantage of being able to study CA law. When I was in law school in CA I think I took one CA specific class (community property). All of the other CA law I learned in BARBRI along with the out of staters. Considering how difficult the CA bar exam is, I think it's pretty impressive that a school can take students with lower GPA/LSAT numbers and still beat top ranked schools on the bar exam. Maybe the well known difficulty of the CA bar makes the CA schools strive harder? I dunno, but it's interesting.
« on: January 28, 2014, 03:28:51 PM »
I have no idea what the legal market is like in Scranton specifically, but here are some general rules that are applicable to just about everyone.
If you are realistic, motivated, and flexible you will likely find work. If you are unrealistic, inflexible, and feel entitled to a high starting salary you will unemployed for a long time.
It seems like many of the people who can't find work are unrealistic and inflexible. To them being a lawyer means working at a firm and making a big starting salary. They think that taking nickel and dime civil cases or DUI cases is beneath them. They don't realize that the litigation experience is invaluable and makes them far more marketable. They will be unemployed for a long time.
A lot of people also think they can rely on their pedigree to open doors. If you graduate from a truly elite school this is true. But don't be fooled into thinking that the #84 ranked law school is going to give you a significantly better shot at employment than the #103 ranked school. Once you get away from elite national schools, you really need to consider local reputation and local connections.
So, if you seek employment in a smaller market you have to understand that you will not be making big money (at least initially), and you will likely be doing stuff like child support modifications, possession charges, and DUIs. If you're OK with that, then it may be the right move.
« on: January 26, 2014, 08:49:59 PM »
I hope the schools consider the reputation of the school (Ohio State) in reviewing her 3.1 GPA. It's not Harvard, but it is certainly not EasyAsPie U. either. She attended OSU as a recruited athlete (rowing). The combination of Division I athletics and sorority fun definitely affected her grades the first year, but she displayed an upward trend thereafter.
The conventional wisdom is that your undergrad college's reputation usually doesn't play a role unless it's a truly elite institution. Think, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc.
OSU is definitely a good, reputable public university but it probably won't either help or hurt her chances very much. The fact is, someone with a 3.5 GPA from a lesser known school is more competitive than a 3.0 from a well known school. The idea is that at the vast majority of colleges, even those with strong reputations, it is not difficult to obtain a 3.0 GPA.
Her rowing experience is a good soft factor, though.
I hope the 157 LSAT offsets the lower GPA.
It just depends on where she wants to go. Having a 3.1/157 is a decent numeric profile, and certainly enough to get into many mid-range law schools. It's not Harvard level, but enough to get in somewhere. Law school admission is very much a numbers game, despite what law school brochures may say. I would advise her to look at the law school profiles on LSAC. They will provide her with a very good idea as to her chances at any given school.
Best of Luck!
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33  35 36 37 38 39 ... 85