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 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 103
Take a look at the admissions information available on LSAC's "Official Guide to U.S. Law Schools". It will give you a very good indication as to your chances.

That said, with a 141 LSAT you stand a statistically very low (perhaps nonexistent) chance at USD and CW, maybe marginally better at TJ. You can go ahead and apply, but I see a retake in your future.

Try to identify the specific reasons that you had trouble this time, and focus on fixing them.

Good Luck!

Online Law Schools / Re: Baby bar test scores
« on: December 23, 2014, 10:08:10 AM »
For the purposes of law school, regional accreditation is sort of irrelevant. The only accreditations that matter are those from the ABA or a state bar. The vast majority of lawyers (employers) will view an online degree as "unaccredited", even though it is technically accredited. Maybe one advantage is that you can get federal student loans if the institution is regionally accredited?

Personally, if I were considering the online/correspondence route I'd look at 1) cost, and 2) bar pass rates. Most employers will frankly be skeptical of any online program, period.

As Citylaw said, online programs can be the right choice for the right student. The decision requires a realistic assessment of the applicant's goals, and where they want to live. For some people, it's the only chance at obtaining a JD, and can be a good choice.

Online Law Schools / Re: Baby bar test scores
« on: December 22, 2014, 03:38:50 PM »
Yeah, I understand your point. I'm just thinking back to a couple of people I knew in law school who struggled, got barely passing grades, and never passed the bar. They may have been better off getting a serious reality check early on and saving two year's tuition.

Funny thing is, some of my classmates who had a hard time came in with good grades and LSAT scores. They just had a very hard time mastering the law school game. Conversely, I knew others who got in by the skin of their teeth, did just fine, passed the bar on their first attempt and are lawyers. It just depends, I guess.

Online Law Schools / Re: Baby bar test scores
« on: December 21, 2014, 08:00:38 PM »
Kind of scary how of the ABA approved law students who took it (by choice I guess) almost none passed it
Then again its doing it just for poops, I guess one would take it less seriously ?

No, ABA takers are those who earned a below passing GPA after their first year and are required to take the FYLSX as a condition of reinstatement.

Personally, I think everyone should probably be required to take the Baby Bar. It would weed out a few people who won't be able to pass the bar, and save them tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars. 

Right you are, my mistake.

Do you mean that firms will hire from San Diego based on pedigree?

I can't really speak for the SD market, but in LA it carries no more weight than Loyola/Pepperdine, etc.

Law School Admissions / Re: QUICK READ! PLEASE RESPOND!
« on: December 18, 2014, 10:52:35 AM »
Yes, an applicant can write their essay about adverse circumstances or the fact that they are the first to go to college, etc. The admissions boost, however, is miniscule as compared to URM status. I think this has to do with the fact that URM enrollment is reported and used a rankings criterion, whereas socio-economic status is not.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily against AA. Certain groups are vastly underrepresented in the legal field. In my experience, however, the single most underrepresented group are the poor, regardless of race. 

Most of what needs to be said has already been covered, but I will add this:

Consider using your GPA/LSAT to get a full ride (or close to a full ride) somewhere, regardless of ranking. If you have a guaranteed job at your current firm, then does it really matter where you go? Would they still hire you if you went to say, Whittier? If so, the lack of debt may be worth it.

Secondly, I live and work in the LA area and I can tell you that none of the schools you mentioned are so prestigious that they are worth $150,000 in my opinion. No firms are going to be so impressed with a degree from Loyola or San Diego that they will hire based on pedigree alone. 

Don't get me wrong, they are both fine schools with good local reputations. I know plenty of lawyers from both schools. But again, is the reputational advantage worth $150,000? I don't know, that's something you'll have to answer for yourself.

Law School Admissions / Re: QUICK READ! PLEASE RESPOND!
« on: December 17, 2014, 09:15:40 AM »
That's true, but it is possible to quantify the effect of URM status vis a vis LSAT scores. The tough part is that it varies based on whether we're talking a 140, 150, or 160 as your base.
It always kind of bugs me how people who go "race is a social construct and we are all just humans and need to stop treating eacother different by race" still call people racist if they ask for that same thing to be applied to college admissions.

Don't get me wrong, if you can use a tool, use it. It just is interesting to me since White Males are NOT the majority of law students anymore and a VAST minority in some other fields such as veterinarian medicine.

These are among the many reasons that race/ethnicity-based AA has been slowly dying for the last fifteen years. Look at the decision in Grutter, then consider that even California has rejected race based AA in it's public universities.

The issues are complex, and AA offers an overly simplistic solution. One of the Ivies (can't remember which one) did a study a while back and found that although AA had increased ethnic diversity at the Ivies, it had not increased socio-economic diversity at all. In other words, the URM child of a heart surgeon benefits from AA while the white kid who grew up in a trailer in Appalachia gets told that he's privileged.

I think some form of AA should exist, but at this point it should based on socio-economic status. 

Law School Admissions / Re: Do I Have a Chance?
« on: December 03, 2014, 08:22:49 AM »
Citylaw has summed it up nicely, but just to expand on a couple of points:

So the definition of "good" is ABA?

I would say yes.

The entire point of ABA accreditation is to ensure that law schools which carry the imprimatur have met or exceeded a series of standards. This creates a predictable, reliable system of legal education which doesn't really differ much between schools.

The standards for accreditation require that the school not only offer an approved curriculum, but that it be financially solvent, have faculty hiring practices in place, offer academic support, meet bar passage standards, and about a hundred other criteria.

In other words, ABA accreditation tells the consumer that they will receive a "good" legal education subject to objectively verifiable criteria. And contrary to popular belief, it's not that easy to obtain ABA accreditation. It takes a lot of money, a lot of dedication on the part of the institution, and years of time. ABA site teams visit every year during the application period and report back to the committee on legal education. They stay on campus for about a week at a time interviewing students and faculty, going over finances and admission standards, sitting on classes and evaluating the academic program.

Prestige is an entirely different matter. Some schools have it and some don't, and it has nothing to do with ABA accreditation. I guarantee that Harvard and Yale were considered elite long before ABA accreditation was conferred. 

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 103