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 - 1LCorvo

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8
Law School Admissions / Re: t-14
« on: June 04, 2007, 09:45:55 AM »
NYU is not on the level of Chi either imo

Based on anything solid? My impression would be CLS>NYU>CHI, although so marginally it makes no sense separating them. Yes, NYU gets a bonus for being in NYC, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant, you go to school to get a job, so location is certainly a factor in judging schools.

Why would you impression be CLS>NYU>CHI...curious?

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Recommend a movie
« on: June 04, 2007, 09:36:41 AM »

(1) Amadeus
(2) 12 Angry Men

That's it...

Law School Admissions / Re: t-14
« on: June 04, 2007, 09:30:59 AM »
This is such a silly thread-  we're all going to "elite" schools.  We'll get some swell jobs and be fine.  Hakuna Matata.

I second that...

Law School Admissions / Re: t-14
« on: June 04, 2007, 09:26:57 AM »
How do people know what law schools are beter or worse by a few positions?  I think it would be hard to tell unless you've been working in law or at least have attended one of these schools.  For example, "NYU better than Columbia" or vice versa or something like that seems to have no value.  Unless you're taking it from a data standpoint (collated by USNWR or Cooley rankings or otherwise), how can you distinguish these things?  People don't seem to be backing up what they say with anything which makes most of it worthless in my opinion.  Why not at least state something you experienced at ASW?

For example, I would understand if somebody said "Princeton Law is better than Brown Law because hiring at orange growers is better at Princeton"  But to just say one is better than the other without having anything to back it up and with no experience seems strange to me. 

Oh...and Columbia undergrad kicks NYU undergrad ass.  That's a fact.   :P

the bolded

Data alone doesn't show whether a school is better than another. How we interpret it plays a significant role. For instance, Kobe Bryant averaged more points than LeBron James last season. Does that mean Kobe is a better offensive player (or basketball player) than Lebron James? I would say no; some would say yes. Kobe takes more shots, and Lebron passes more. Some people might argue that the more points you score, the better the player you are. Whereas, I think efficiency matters most. Lebron is a much more efficient ball player.

The point being that stats can only say so much. Our interpretation of them matters a lot. But I do agree that stats are important in some regard. I think we get to wrapped up in numbers...but this is just an unsubstantiated opinion.   

Law School Admissions / Re: t-14
« on: June 04, 2007, 09:19:23 AM »
Well, there are tangible factors that distinguishes certain schools from one another. For instance, it is a fact that NYU/CLS places more students in NYC than Duke/Penn/Uva.

It would be better if it illustrated the students that didn't make it to NYC (or any other regions)from t14s. That gives a more comprehensive answer to the employment questions. But that is neither here nor there.

It really depends on what factors you value most.

I'd use both.

can I ask why you chose Duke?

I picked Duke for a variety of reasons:

-I lived in Carolina for about 7 years, so I am slightly bias.
-I received the most money from Duke (out of the t14).
-I don't want to study in the city (Philly, NYC, or Chicago). I've never been a city kind of guy. But I do see the advantages in studying in the city.
-I enjoy college basketball a lot. My UG didn't really emphasize sports (d3), and it was lame. So, I wanted to go somewhere that did.
-Visited (UVA, Penn, NYU, CLS, Mich, N/W, and Duke), and enjoyed Duke the most.
-Duke places well around the country. So, I'm not too worried about my job prospects after school.
-Believe it or not, weather was important to me. I tried to figure out what makes me happy. And warm weather does.
-Coach K and the Cameron Crazies.
-They have a fantastic gym too. It was great playing ball there.

It came down to Uva and Duke for me. I hope that answers your question.

Black Law Students / Re: the NBA Playoffs
« on: June 03, 2007, 09:37:14 PM »
The pistons have no big men at all...they are getting old and lost BEN WALLACE...The spurs have bowens, who is a first team all nba...not saying they hill will hold Lebron, but he will do more than richard hamilton did.  The spurs have too much depth and are poised.  They won't have the ejections like the pistons or the flagrant fouls.  They are well rested and have been scouting.  Popovich will have a game plan...

The entire pistons team practically guarded Lebron. And Prince did most of the work, not Rip. As I said before, the Spurs aren't the underdogs. Conventional wisdom says the Spurs. And they do have the better team. However, it's difficult for me to say that the Spurs will win. LeBron is a different kind of player now. He basically willed the Cavs to victory. 

Black Law Students / Re: the NBA Playoffs
« on: June 03, 2007, 09:18:08 PM »
I didn't think the Cavs would win the conference finals. After watching last year finals, I've come to realize that one player can dominate a series. D-Wade killed the Mavericks. I think Lebron can kill the Spurs, so it should be a tight series. LeBron has awaken, so it could mean trouble for the spurs. And, I think DGib will play well.

It's hard to predict at this point. Obviously, conventional wisdom says picked the Spurs. They've done it before, and they have Tim Duncan, Ginob, and Parker. But, Lebron pretty much single handedly beat the Pistons. I don't see anyone on the Spurs stopping him.


Of the two, which is better?
Would you recommend either of the two? Both?

pros/cons of both?

Black Law Students / Re: the NBA Playoffs
« on: May 30, 2007, 07:49:48 PM »
I'd rather play zone and have no hand check than play man and have handcheck?? in zone who are you guarding anyway? 

I don't remember any stunning defensive play by kobe, ever.  its all hype.  when AI played the Lakers in the finals Fish guarded him, and Tyrone Lue.  Kobe was not checking him.  Allen goes off on the Lakers routinely.  McGrady has been sh*t since he left Orlando.  All the players you named get theirs, and Kobe loses the game to boot.  Kobe has had some of the friendliest press since hes entered the league.  it's ridiculous.  I don't see this tenacious D.  Jordan was a tenacious defender.  All that said, Kobe probably is a better defender than Lebron.  At this point, thats the part of Lebrons game that needs the most work.  However, do you watch the games?  You can't tell me Kobe does the things Lebron does to win games?  Lebron includes everybody.  He runs his team.  This latest sh*t with Kobe tells you the type of player he is - selfish. 


I think they're both great. But the NBA tends to over value scorers. Lebron is a great scorer at his age, but Kobe is much more explosive scorer. Lebron will easily get there. But Kob dropped 50 in like 4 games straight (and 81). Does that make him better than Lebron? Hell no. But, in the offense category, Kobe gets the edge. In defense, it is hard to tell. Statistically, Lebron is better on defense. But Kobe seems to put more effort in to it. He's not Bruce Bowen, but rarely does an offensive talent like Kobe possess the energy to play good defense as well. He does it on both ends (I'm not sure if he deserved to make first team though). I think since Kobe has the edge in offense, and because they are incredibly close defensively, Kobe might be considered the better player now.

...But, in the end, Lebron will prove to be a better player. He has the ability to do everything, he makes his team better, and he wins. Kobe will be remember as a remarkable scorer. LeBron will remember as a remarkable talent, who was able to win. 

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8