It's not. Small children need regular naps and sippy cups full of delicious juice, otherwise they become cranky and say naughty things.
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
Yeah, the aggregate total of all Cooley campuses is around 3000. I think that the next biggest schools are Harvard, Hastings, and Loyola-LA, each at around 1200. (Might be wrong on that). I'm curious, does that 50% attrition rate represent only forced attrition, or does it also include those who simply drop out? Either way it's an astounding number. I think attrition at my law school was something like 4-6%.
Fortook is right, Cooley's not your only option. If you need to stay in the region take a look at Detroit-Mercy, Toledo, Valparaiso, Akron, and Cleveland State.
If Chapman has a part-time program you could try amending your application to go PT. You might have a better shot at getting in. I don't blame you for wanting Chapman over Whittier and SW, Chapman's campus is better than many T1s I've visited. There really isn't much you can do, however, to increase your odds of admission.
Considering that you got accepted at SW and a scholarship at Whittier, I'm surprised you were waitlisted at all. Don't Chapman and SW have pretty similar admissions profiles?
Isn't Cooley the exact opposite of degree mill? A degree mill is a school which both admits and graduates anyone, with no real curricular/scholastic standards. Cooley admits just about anyone, but then dismisses a large number due to academic attrition. Those that graduate are not handed a degree for simply showing up, but have in fact completed the same general course requirements of any student at any ABA approved law school.
I don't think any ABA approved law school can be considered a degree mill.
« on: May 24, 2012, 07:34:25 PM »
If your goal is biglaw, I suppose Fordham is the best choice. Understand, however, that you will need to perform exceptionally well and will accrue massive debt. Chances are you'll have to pay that debt off without a biglaw salary.
Between Hofstra and Brooklyn: take the money and run. The lack of debt will provide you with a degree of flexibility that will likely outweigh any slight reputational advantage that Brooklyn posseses. Trust me, three years from now when you're looking for job you appreciate the lack of debt.
Although I don't live or work in the NYC area, I doubt if either school has any particular advantage over the other. Were you offered $$$ from either? I'd probably pick that one. Also, think about what you want to do after law school. Will one of these places put yp in a better position than the other?
« on: May 24, 2012, 07:18:14 PM »
No matter where you go to law school (with the exception of a few very elite schools) you will likely end up unempoyed and in debt at graduation if you don't start working on a plan from day one. Many law students commit two huge mistakes in my opinion: they choose rankings over scholarships and have entirely unrealistic notions reagrding their post-law school options.
If you develop an attainable goal before starting law school, hustle like crazy to obatin internships in that same field, and can minimize debt, you'll probably be alright. The key is to be realistic. If you're going to a T4 don't waste time dreaming about the 1/100 chance that you might get a biglaw job or a federal clerkship. If you do, you'll be disappointed and frustrated. If, however, you set your sights on small family law firms (for example), you can probably buld up some great experience and make some solid contacts.
The people in my class who had jobs at graduation or shortly thereafter started developing these kinds of contacts in the first year. Everybody else (including some top academic performers) waited until the end or relied too heavily on OCI, mass resume drops, etc. I've worked a couple of private and government law offices now, and have seen how a well-connected, experienced T4 grad can beat out a random T1 grad when it comes to getting hired. That's why blanket statements regarding the futility of attending a lower tier school are so often flawed, they never take into account the applicants eventual goals.
It's important to remember that apart from a handful of uber-elite schools, most T1s are essentially strong regional schools that won't give you an edge outside of your region. Depending on what you want to do, a full or substantial scholarship at a local T4 might make more sense that 150k debt from a non-elite T1.
« on: May 21, 2012, 06:33:26 PM »
Shameful, absolutely shameful. There is not one single affordable law school left in the entire state of California. Apart from Stanford, not one of them is worth 40k per year. (And Stanford is only worth it if you want to go into biglaw).
Scholarships over rankings, people! This is what I tell to any friend, family member or anonymous poster who says "I just got accepted to Random Non-Elite Law School #1 with a 50% scholarship, but I'm thinking about going to Random Non-Elite Law School #2 without a scholarship because it's ranked 87th instead of 94th". I really don't think most 22 year olds understand what 200k debt means.
I spoke to girl just a few days ago who told me that she began college a state school but transferred to an expensive private university because she thought it had a better rep and would help her get into law school. She didn't do very well on the LSAT and had to pay sticker price for law school (at a T3). Between undergrad and law school she has 300k of debt. If I had known her five years ago, I would've said stay at the cheap state school, take a year off to study for the LSAT, and crush it.
Satan? Probably not.
Clueless chump? Most definitely.
Like most rich kids MR is utterly clueless. His entire life has been socially, economically, and yes spiritually, removed from mainstream society. His words and actions leave me with no doubt that this guy has no idea what life is like for the vast majority of Americans, and that he probably doesn't care. For example, he's considering Marco Rubio for VP in an effort to sway the latino vote. He fails to realize that Rubio is emblematic of Florida Cubans, not latinos in general, and that a Romney/Rubio ticket won't mean a thing in LA, AZ, NM, CO, or any swing state other than FL.
The inability of the Republicans to capitalize on Obama's obvious weakness is astounding. In an age of extreme cynicism about corporate America's lack of ethics, they have nominated Monty Burns for president. Amazing. Obama's re-election is not guaranteed (as many Dems seem to think), but a look at the electoral college projections should scare the fancy pants off of Romney. Karl Rove's own electoral map projects Obama with approximately 290 votes currently, enough to win with 20 to spare. He projects that MR has about 160, with 87 up for grabs. (My numbers might be inaccurate, I'm going off of memory).