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  39 40 41 42 43 ... 69
« on: December 16, 2012, 01:22:57 PM »
I have mixed emotions about unaccredited law schools. One the one hand, they may serve a purpose for the right person. On the other, that purpose is probably something other than putting a J.D. on one's resume in furtherance of applying for jobs as an attorney.
Hi Duncan. As usual, I think your analysis is spot on. Unaccredited schools can be the best choice for the right student. Much of the criticism of unaccredited schools is unfair and comes from younger ABA students who don't understand the benefits that may accrue to an older student who just wants to further their career, and couldn't care less about biglaw. Like I said, I've met attorneys (and even a judge) who graduated from unaccredited schools.
That said, in order for someone to determine whether or not an uaccredited program is right for them they've got to understand the potential limitations of such a degree. And it's here that I see some blissful ignorance (or denial) on the part of some unaccredited students.
I go back and forth on this issue of unaccredited law schools. Clearly they serve a purpose, but it's equally clear that some issues with FYLSE and bar pass rates exist. Are the low FYLSE pass rates due to a lack of academic rigor? Or is there a lack of meaningful feedback to the students? Or is the problem with admissions (letting in unqualified students)? Maybe it's a combination of these and other factors.
As I said, much of the criticism of unaccredited schools is unfair and is based on snobbery. Nonetheless, if unaccredited/online programs want to be taken seriously they've got to meet the rest of the legal profession half way. It's not enough to just say "Everyone else needs to change their attitude." They are going to have to significantly boost their FYLSE/bar exam pass rates. Until then, I don't think much will change.
You mentioned that your CBE degree is only a notch above an unaccredited degree, but I'd disagree. CBE schools are accredited, just not by the ABA. In California the bench and bar are well stocked with CBE grads, and many CBE law schools have good local reputations. I've worked at offices where CBE grads worked alongside UCLA grads, but where an unaccredited grad would probably not even get an interview, period. That may be unfair and short sighted, but it's true nonetheless. The fact is, the CBE schools have already proven that non-ABA degrees can be accepted by the legal profession if they adhere to predictable, accepted standards.
« on: December 15, 2012, 08:01:37 PM »
The good news is that you've got some time to prepare. The people who get accepted with GPAs in the 25% range are often either splitters (with very high LSAT scores to compensate) or have amazing softs, or both. Nevertheless, it can be done. Just remember, even if you don't get into T14 you can still get a solid legal education and have a great career. The vast, overwhelming majority of successful lawyers didn't go to a T14.
« on: December 15, 2012, 07:40:50 PM »
Do you have an LSAT score yet? That's going to be an even bigger factor than your GPA. Assuming that you can successfully raise you GPA to 3.5, you'd probably need to score around 170 to have a shot at NYU or Cornell. No small task.
« on: December 15, 2012, 12:27:39 PM »
Congratulations Jenni, I'm glad you passed!
That's how you pass law school exams. You spot all of the issues and talk about them intelligently. The baby bar is no different. If you hit all of the issues and talk about them with the right rule, passing the BB should be a snap.
Duncan, I'd go a step further and say that's essentially how you pass the bar exam, too. Take a look at the examples of passing bar essays on Calbar. The rule statements are often short and direct and the analysis is good, but not incredible. I think my law school placed a higher value on in-depth analysis than the bar examiners. If you fail to identify issues on the bar however, you're toast. The best analysis in the world won't score you enough points to pass if you miss a major issue.
One of the major obstacles people face on the bar essays and PTs (and, I assume, on the FYLSE) is simply organization. I knew a lot of classmates who knew the black letter law and could apply it to fact patterns. What they sstruggled with was distilling that mountain of info into a cohesive, easy to read format. The bar graders are going through hundreds of essays, and you've got make your essays as clear as possible. If you bury a key point in the middle of a long, complex paragraph that is otherwise full of brilliant analysis it may be missed. Writing good essays, whether it's law school, the baby bar or the bar is a learnable skill, but it takes lots of practice.
The reason the baby bar seems hard is because so many of the people who have to take it have already demonstrated that passing law exams gives them trouble. I've read some of the essay questions that appear on the baby bar. They look like ordinary law school essays to me. Nothing more difficult than the essay questions I faced with my first year final exams.
I agree. This illustrates one of the problems I have with unaccredited programs. Unaccredited programs accept almost everyone and have little in the way of prerequisites. Bachelor's degree not required, good UGPA not required, LSAT not required. In other words there's no "weeding out" process previous
to matriculation and many unqualified applicants are admitted. Not surprisingly a huge number fail the FYLSE and bar exam.
Certainly there are smart, successful graduates of unaccredited schools. I've had the pleasure of meeting several. Statisically, however, these graduates are the exception, not the rule. If someone hasn't demonstrated that they can succeed academically or on a standardized test (LSAT), I'm not sure what criteria (if any) is used to determine that they'll be able to pass the state legal exams.
« on: December 10, 2012, 12:02:51 AM »
How is it possible that you did so poorly on the essays, yet received a 77% on the MBE questions? Such circumstances are a complete distortion of how things work in these types of exams.
I'm not so sure about that. The multiple choice and essay sections are fundamentally different (that's why the bar tests both formats). Both portions of the exam involve the same black letter law, but each requires a very different output from the taker. The MBEs require the taker to simply identify and locate the rule. The essays are, in my opinion, more complex. The taker must not only regurgitate the rule, but apply the rule(s) to multiple facts and create an easy-to-read, logical essay under timed conditions. There are simply more moving parts, and I see how someone might do considerably better on the MBEs than on the essays.
BTW, on the bar 65 is passing for the essays. Is that the same for the FYLSE? If so a 60 doesn't seem so bad, certainly capable of being remedied.
« on: December 08, 2012, 06:45:07 PM »
I know that most law schools say first year grades are paramount but i wonder if the top 15 still focuses on undergrad as well. If thats the case my undergrad was more than rocky, and my lsat was mediocre at best.. Im wondering if that they will take that into account.
I don't know if your undergrad and LSAT are taken into account for transferring. Your first year grades are, I believe, the major factor. My impression is that transferring from a lower ranked to a T14 requires very, very good grades. The number of slots open to transfer students is small (many top schools only accept 10-20), and the competition will have some serious credentials. I knew someone who transferred from Hastings to Berkeley, and they were ranked near the very top of the class after 1L. I imagine it would be even tougher for someone coming from a lower ranked school.
Livinglegend's idea about using the transfer as leverage for scholarship money is worth exploring. Also remember that depending on where you want to live and work after law school am out of state T1 may not be the best option (unless we're talking about Harvard, Yale, etc). For example, if you want to live in Milwaukee I'm not sure that a degree from UCLA with average grades (your ranking may very well drop if you transfer) is more useful than a degree from Marquette with very high grades. You may have better opportunities graduating top of your class from a good local school.
« on: December 07, 2012, 05:35:05 PM »
One of my friends from law school was an officer, and hoped to get into JAG after graduation. He said that even with his background (years of active duty before law school) he wasn't guaranteed a spot, he'd still have to compete among a highly qualified pool of applicants.
i dont know if thats what its called, but i want to be an officer that does not go into combat but stays on base.
As far as I know, JAG officers are routinely serving in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think the military has much interest in officers who seek to avoid combat.
« on: December 07, 2012, 12:59:24 PM »
Anyways, for a GPA of 3.36 what LSAT score do you think I would need to be accepted into Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Columbia, and Duke?
First, it's highly unlikely that you can accurately predict your GPA years into the future. For example, would you have predicted that you'd have a 2.7 by now, or would you have predicted higher?
That said, with a hypothetical 3.36 you'd probably need a 175-180 to have a shot at any of the schools you mentioned. Take a look at LSAC's admission profiles, it will give you a good idea. Even then it's probably unlikely. At this point any speculation about your future LSAT score is premature. The LSAT is a weird test, and you simply can't assume that you'll be in the top 1-2%. Remember, at top schools you'll be evaluated against other applicants who have 4.0 GPAs, ridiculously high LSATs, and
amazing soft factors. As always, it's not about you, it's about the competition. Please understand that I'm not trying be overly negative, I'm just trying to answer your question honestly.
Here's something else to consider: there are lots of good law schools that will accept an applicant with a 3.36 and less than a 175 LSAT. You can get a great legal education and have a successful career even if you don't go to an elite school. Focus on getting good grades and start practicing for the LSAT as soon as possible.
« on: December 07, 2012, 12:41:44 PM »
The key in these situations is to be absolutely candid and to disclose everything. Don't make excuses, don't equivocate, just be honest. People get admitted to law school and the bar with similar issues as long as they are honest and don't repeat the mistakes. After law school you'll have to apply for a moral character determination from the state bar before you can be admitted. They will likely require full disclosure of any such incidents. The thing that they really don't tolerate is a lack of candor (the cover up is worse than the crime, often). They want to see that you own up to your mistakes and have learned from them. Keep squeeky clean from now on and fully disclose.
That said, you should always contact your state bar and get the answers straight from them. They may have certain requirements of which people here are unaware. Anything you get here is just an educated guess.
« on: December 07, 2012, 12:31:43 PM »
Like Livinglegend said, you're probably fine as long as you disclose it. I think you're required to disclose any history of psychiatric care (at least in CA). I don't think that a problem so far in the past, especially without a recurrence, would cause any problems. Thousands of people apply to the bar every year, and I'm sure that many have had similar issues. This isn't going to be something they haven't seen before.
That said, you should of course contact your state bar and get the answers straight from them. Anything you get here is just an educated guess!
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37  39 40 41 42 43 ... 69