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 ... 31 32 33 34 35  37 38 39 40
« on: May 15, 2012, 01:17:29 PM »
Although I'm not a tax attorney, I doubt that the extra five classes in taxation offered at NESL will make much difference when it comes to getting a job. In my experience, employers rarely pay much attention to the specifics of your transcript. Your background in accounting will likely be the prime factor. However, my understanding is that tax is one of the few areas of legal practice where an LL.M is preferred (required for some jobs). Maybe the extra classes would help you get into a good LL.M program.
Here's the thing (and please understand that I don't mean this as criticism): neither school is very prestigious, so you might as well save the money. I'm not sure that I'd agree that NESL's reputation is a lot better than UMass's. NESL has been around a while, and has always been a lower tier school. UMass is new, which means they don't yet have a reputation. However, in my opinion UMass has the potential to become a very good school. Frankly, I think it will quickly surpass NESL, Suffolk, and Northeastern. Remember, "new" doesn't mean "bad". The UMass system is large and well respected, and this will benefit the law school immensly.
In my neck of the woods (CA), we've had two new schools pop up (UC Irvine and Chapman) within the last decade. Chapman quickly passed up its competition in Orange County (Whittier and WSU), and UCI is slated to pass up everyone in southern California except UCLA and (maybe) USC! Not bad for start-ups.
Lastly, the time you'll save commuting is important. Especially in your first year, law school is almost unbelievably demanding. An easy commute, low stress day will really help. In the end, remember that I have no actual experience with either school. Do what you think is right for you!
« on: May 15, 2012, 11:43:41 AM »
La Verne is ABA approved, as of March, 2012.
« on: May 13, 2012, 01:59:13 PM »
Taitz is a loon, but I had no idea they were blaming Taft for her antics. Did they blame Duke for Nixon? If anything, I guess Taft deserves a little credit, she did pass the bar.
« on: May 10, 2012, 02:31:16 PM »
If you take the LSAT twice, most schools will either average your scores together or use the highest score. I have no idea what happens if you take it three times. You may have to wait a while before you can take it again, check with LSAC.
I would definitley advise taking a course if possible. I took kaplan and found it to be very beneficial. They had a test center in my area and I went every single day and took at least one full LSAT under actual test conditions, then analyzed my answers. Very helpful. It is expensive, however. If you do take a class you will get out of it what you put into it. Work hard, review your answers (don't just keep re-taking tests without review), and make the LSAT your single focus.
If you're not in a rush and can wait a while, I'd say take a class and re-take the LSAT. If you do decide to go to Cooley, take the time to research all aspects of the school and understand what it's going to take to succeed both in law school and afterwards. Transferring is not easy, and you really should not go to any law school that you aren't prepared to graduate from.
I hope that helped, good luck!
« on: May 10, 2012, 12:59:27 AM »
I don't have any personal experience with either school, so keep that in mind as you read this. To me, it sounds like UMass is probably a better bet.
1) It's cheaper, a huge advantage. Since neither school currently has a huge reputation, you might as well save money.
2) The UMass system is fairly well respected, and I think there's a good chance that UMass Law will eventually build up a solid reputation. Having a strong, well recognized parent institution supporting the law school is invaluable. It means that even though the law school is new, the institution already has experience with administration, fundraising, setting up financial aid programs, etc. All of that experience will come into play when the law school applies for full ABA approval. The ABA looks at everything from long term financial viability, to employment policies and administrative stability. Also, UMass has already hired some pretty good people, including Malagrino (formerly of La Verne and USD) for property. All good signs.
3) NESL, on the other hand, has probably peaked and isn't going any higher.
« on: May 09, 2012, 01:10:32 PM »
I agree, it's a statement with no basis in reality. Many law schools have a median/average LSAT score below 160, and yet maintain low academic attrition.
« on: May 09, 2012, 11:16:53 AM »
Of course the LSAT isn't perfect, no test is. However, as you point out, the LSAT is a dependable predictor of academic aptitude (the exact thing it is designed to predict!). It stands to reason that in most cases a student with a high LSAT score will out perform those with lower scores. The LSAT is not supposed to approximate the law school experience, it just measures ability.
To the OP: don't go to ANY law school unless you are prepared to spend all three years there. Once you start you will quickly discover that law school, whether you're at Harvard or Cooley, is nothing like college. The competition is intense and it's very difficult to predict how you will perform, especially if you're coming in with less-than-stellar numbers.
If you are prepared to spend all three years at Cooley anyway, that's a different story. Research the school's curve and contact the schools you'd like to transfer to. Most importantly, be realistic about your gals and options. If you start law school on day one expecting to be in the top 10% and transferring, you will likely be disappointed and frustrated. This is nothing against you personally, it's just the cold, hard reality of law school. My law school had a brutal curve that made it very difficult to transfer, and I suspect Cooley is the same.
Be realistic about all aspects of law school, not just transferring, be prepared, and be informed. If you do that you'll probably be alright.
« on: May 07, 2012, 06:18:04 PM »
Sorry, just forgot to mention a few things.
If your living expenses are coming out of pocket, does that mean you'll be taking out loans to cover them? SF and NYC are especially expensive cities, and that could add significantly to your debt.
You also stated that you're concerned about attending any T2, 3, 4. Well, this goes back to what I said earlier about establishing realistic, achievable goals. For example: You don't have to be a Harvard grad to get a great job, but if you want to clerk at the Supreme Court you better be Harvard grad. It's a trite example, but you get the point. If you want to work at a prestigious national organization or big firm, you need to get into a top law school and then perform very well.
On the other hand, check into your local DA (which has domestic violence and sex crimes units), Public Defender, or local advocacy groups. I guarantee that they're NOT stocked with Harvard and Yale grads. You can attend a local T2, 3, or 4, and have a good shot at these places. If you go to school in CA, I highly recommend that you take advantage of the state bar's training program which allows you to become certified to make court appearances while still in law school. You can even argue full misdemeanor trials. That kind of experience is worth its weight in gold when it comes to finding a job.
« on: May 07, 2012, 05:11:58 PM »
It's good that you're paying attention to the scholarship stipulations, they can be very tricky. Take the time to fully understand how the curve at your school works, and what it will take to maintain the full scholarship. I went to law school with a 75% scholarship and had to stay in the top 15% in order to retain it all. I assume your scholarship has some similar requirement.
Let me tell you, no matter where you go, whether it be Harvard or GGU, ranking in the top 15% (or even top 1/3) is no joke. A lot of people think "I'm going to lower ranked school, and I got this big scholarship, so I must be smarter than the vast majority of my competition. Clearly I'm destined to be on top." I'm sure you've heard this before, but law school is nothing like college.
Here's what they fail to realize: you may be smarter than the vast majority of people matriculating at your school, but you won't be competing against the great unwashed masses for that top ranking. You'll be competing against other people just like you. Smart, ambitious people with big scholarships and lots of motivation. The level of subject matter mastery and writing ability that would have gotten you straight A's in undergrad will get you a C in law school, seriously.
You can make it happen, however. Dedicate yourself entirely to succeeding, and don't waste time. I'm graduating from law school in CA with a small, local reputation only. I went out of my way to make connections and to obtain internships, and have a good job offer. It's not really the type of law I want to work in, but it's better than being unemployed. Like I said before, be flexible and adapt to what the market needs and you'll be two steps ahead of most of your classmates.
« on: May 07, 2012, 04:08:24 PM »
Thanks, that's very interesting!
La Verne has better long term long-term employment numbers than Hastings!? I must say, I've always thought that La Verne was a diamond in the rough, but still.
I didn't read the methodology, but I assume this chart represents percentage of grads who obtained long-term employment within a specified period of time (9 months after graduation, 1 year after, etc). Clearly, Cooley ranks near the bottom of this list and the big national schools rank near the top. My point was not to claim that T4 grads (from Cooley or elsewhere) are just as employable as T1 grads, but to challenge the metric by which we tend to define success, ie; biglaw/midlaw.
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35  37 38 39 40