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 ... 47 48 49 50 51  53 54 55 56 57 ... 66
« on: July 06, 2012, 05:17:29 PM »
Yes, I am aware that I am a candidate for IP law. Many of my friends who were engineers did this, but unfortunately I was looking into international law.
Do you think that perhaps a masters degree in Public Policy with a high GPA would make me a better candidate?
As far as I can tell, M.A.s don't really help too much. They're a soft factor, at best. I'm basing this on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, but that's what I've been told by friends who applied to law school after earning master's, MBAs, etc. LSAC calculates your GPA based on undergrad only, and might give you a slight boost because of your math/science background.
I think that with a 3.07 and a 170+ LSAT you can still get into some top schools, depending on your definition of "top". Yale, Harvard, and any of the other truly elite schools are probably out of the question, but plenty of T1 schools would be well within your reach. I don't know what part of the country you're in, but you'd have a decent shot at places like Davis, Hastings, George Washington, maybe Notre Dame. The key is going to be your LSAT score. Do everything you can to max it out.
« on: July 06, 2012, 11:20:16 AM »
I am curious Roald. Have you actually gotten a job offer?
Teacher guy: Another piece of advice is to talk to alumni of the school you get accepted to. Find out more than just their story, ask them what the job reality is for their whole graduating class. Most law school classes are small and everybody knows everybody.
Yes, I graduated with a good job offer from a mid-sized firm. Not my ideal job, but I'll take what I can get.
My point is not to deny that the job market is terrible, it is. Most people are graduating with no job offer, and are struggling to find work while juggling high student loan payments. My point is this: you need to put yourself in a position to acquire one of the jobs that is available by gaining experience. Law firms and government offices are operating on smaller budgets than previously, and they're not interested in spending a lot of time training a new lawyer. If you can show up with some experience you stand a better chance.
You mentioned that you wouldn't advise going to a school that isn't first or second tier. I think you and I would both agree that going to a prestigious law school is hugely beneficial, no doubt about it. But consider this: only a handful of the schools ranked in T1 are actually the kind of elite institutions that will get you a job based on pedigree alone. Most T1 schools are essentially good local/regional schools, and don't really carry any weight outside of their immediate geographic region.
Let's say you wanted to practice in Los Angeles. Would you be better off accepting a full ride at Southwestern (T3) or going $150,000 in debt to attend the University of Wisconsin (T1)? Although Wisconsin is a very good school, it's not exactly elite. No firm in LA is going to be so blown away by that degree that they'll offer you a job based on pedigree. Plus, having spent the last three years in Madison, you probably won't have made any contacts in the LA market. I'd argue that in such a tight market graduating from a T3-T4 without debt
would better than a non-elite T1 degree.
I also agree with you, kopacabana, that law schools manipulate and twist employment statistics. Don't trust the law schools to get you a job, you've got to make your own luck.
« on: July 06, 2012, 01:24:43 AM »
Also... I'm sure you Jack and the other bloggers all live in Cali.??. But.... what is your impression on the job market for students graduating from schools like SD, SC, McGeorge (t2, t3). I'm looking at more govt. type work and not big law.
All these schools boast job placements in the 90%s after nine months but I don't trust these numbers. Half of them could be working at Starbucks. I live in Texas but have always wanted to practice law and live in California... so why not do both at the same time, right?
It's tough to get an impression of the state without being there.... I know in Texas, I could go to Tech and it probably wouldn't be to tough to get an ADA job in the panhandle etc...
What's your impression?
I'm a recent grad from a California ABA school, and the job market is very, very tight. Obviously, graduates from top ranked schools like Stanford and UCLA have a reputational advantage that graduates from lower ranked schools don't. That having been said, I know plenty of people who graduated from places like Loyola, USD, and even newly accredited schools like La Verne who got good jobs straight out of law school.
There are a couple of things to realize. First, if you go to a decent local school like the ones I just mentioned you probably won't be competing with Stanford and Berkeley grads anyway. They're not applying for the same jobs that you are. Trust me, your local public defender's office is NOT flooded with applicants from Stanford and Columbia. It is, however, probably flooded with applicants from some of the schools you're talking about. The same goes for small family law firms, real estate firms, etc. If you want to do biglaw you need an elite degree or you need to be very high-ranked at a lower tier school. For government and small firm work you need solid, meaningful experience.
I cannot emphasize this point enough. The people I know who had job offers at graduation began their job search on day one of the first semester. They interned as much as possible, did good work, acted smart and professional, and made contacts. These people were not always the highest ranked students, but they were very good at marketing themselves. You will be amazed at how many of your classmates either wait until the end of law school to start looking for an internship, or who obtain one but don't take it very seriously. In this market, that just won't cut it. It is imperitive that you get some experience.
I had the opportunity to intern at a great, very supportive government office. They allowed me to take on as much work as I could handle, and I immediately recognized how lucky I was. While most of my friends were writing research briefs, I was writing motions for summary judgement and making appearances in court. I reapplied for the same internship the next year, got it, and continued to learn. By the end, I had been given a case which I worked up and argued in court. (CA allows law students to get certified. You can make appearances and argue misdemeanor and some small civil cases). As graduation neared the experience and recommendations I had acquired paid off with a job offer.
I'm not telling you this to brag about myself, I'm just trying to point out that although the market sucks, you'll be a much better position to succeed if you follow some basic steps: get experience, make contacts, and be friendly and competent. Seriously, you'd be amazed at how far the friendly and competent part will get you.
« on: July 06, 2012, 12:51:39 AM »
First of all, you're in a pretty nice situation. There are worse things than having to choose between law school scholarships! I don't live in the Midwest and I have no experience with the market, but I'll assume that Illinois has some reputational advantage over SLU. The question is: how much advantage, and is it worth the extra cost (if any)? My guess is that both schools have good reputations within their areas, and there may not be a huge difference between them.
Here are a few things to cconsider:
You mentioned that ILL is T1 while SLU is T3, and that you may want to practice outside of the midwest. In other parts of the country, I'm pretty sure ILL and SLU will be viewed as more or less interchangeable. Even though ILL is T1, it's not elite. Very few schools have the type of badass national rep that will get you a job anywhere in the nation based on pedigree alone. Even within the first tier, most schools are essentially regional. If you want to stay in the midwest, maybe ILL would be advantageous. But, if you moved to LA, for example, neither school would give you an advantage over the other. In that case you might as well save the money and go to SLU.
For that matter, if you really want to live in a particular part of the country after graduation, I'd advise going to law school in that area. It's much easier to get internships and make contacts if you're living in the area in which you plan to work. Think also about what type of law you might want to practice. I imagine that ILL would give a better shot at biglaw in Chicago and some of the other bigger midwest cities, if that's what you want.
As Cher said, pay very close attention to the details of your scholarship offers. Law schools are not always entirely clear about what it takes to maintain those funds.
The fact is, SLU and ILL are both fine schools and you'll get a good legal education at either one. I would just try to figure out if there is any real advantage which will accrue to you by choosing one over the other, and without getting to caught up in what an unscientific ranking conducted by a magazine says.
« on: July 05, 2012, 09:05:59 PM »
As Haus said, a rule like that would be according to each state's bar, not the ABA. I've never heard of an "expiration date" on JDs, and I'd be surprised if any state restricted bar admission in that manner.
« on: July 05, 2012, 04:27:23 PM »
I've wondered the same thing.
On the other hand, his general profile seems to mesh perfectly with what I know about USC. Delusions of grandeur, questionable admissions practices, puerile eroticism...he may be a genuine Tommy Trojan.
« on: July 05, 2012, 04:22:21 PM »
I actually agree with you, Jack, at least to an extent. For example, Stanford has a higher bar pass rate than Golden Gate even though substantive education at each school is very similar. Why? Because the students at Stanford are generally better qualified academically. With online unaccredited schools I think that the quality of students is definitely an issue, but I think there are probably several other issues that contribute to the low pass rates.
« on: July 05, 2012, 03:28:37 PM »
Yeah, that's not too surprising. I guess my question would be this: among the online schools you're looking at, does any one have higher pass rates than the others? If so, are those pass rates consistently higher? If the answer is yes, I'd probably pick that school.
Just curious, is online your only option? Could you attend a part-time evening program at a brick and mortar school?
« on: July 05, 2012, 02:24:42 PM »
Or third, fourth, fifth...
« on: July 05, 2012, 02:21:54 PM »
BTW, I don't claim to know what exact, specific process Berkeley or any other school utilizes. The dean at Berkeley may very well read each essay before looking at grades and LSAT. My only point is this: regardless of whether or not they read the essay first, if an applicant's numbers are significantly below the school's average, the chances for admission are very low. Admissions reps love to talk about how they take a holistic approach and consider many factors, blah, blah, blah.
The numbers that the schools themselves report to LSAC, however, seem to contradict their claims. For example: according to Davis's own numbers, an applicant with a 3.25-3.49 GPA and a 155-159 LSAT has a slightly better than 1% chance of admission (3/212). Davis claims that admission "is by no means mechanical . . . with consideration given to many factors." Alright, fine, but it would seem that below a certain threshold an applicant's chances are nearly zero regardless of such consideration. I'm not picking on Davis, this is standard operating procedure for most law schools.
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51  53 54 55 56 57 ... 66