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 - iscoredawaitlist
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 258
« on: June 27, 2008, 01:04:14 PM »
I only speak from experience at USC which is probably not greatly representative in terms of faculty, but professors in general are not conservative at all.
Anyway, when these types of concerns pop into your mind (and it happens all the time, whether you think the prof might have heard you talk behind their back, miss a class, write a bad teacher eval, etc.), remember that law school exams are blind graded.
« on: June 27, 2008, 01:00:29 PM »
What's the type of person who could ace an exam without ever opening a book? Is it the same type of person who did well on the LSAT? What's this innate ability?
A law school exam? Never opening the book at all? No one. Unlike the LSAT, you do actually need to know the material to do well on a law school exam. It's not enough to JUST know the material, but you do have to know it. I mean, I know people who hardly ever do the reading, or hardly ever go to class and do pretty well, but none of them are acing every class. And you definitely can't both skip most of the reading AND class and expect to do really well. I don't think so, anyway...
Well, okay, except Cady. But she's lawtistic
I think most people either have to do the reading or go to class. You have to do at least one. Though doing the reading doesn't necessarily mean reading all of the cases. I did pretty well in conlaw despite missing (all too many) classes and not reading some of the cases. Instead I read Chemerinsky (bible!) and read summaries of the cases that I'd missed on wikipedia (pretty decent resource, especially for conlaw because most of the cases that you read are pretty well known). Otoh, I read notes from all the classes which were posted online, so I did get some insight into class discussion and was familiar with my prof's approach and favorite issues. I definitely don't recommend this approach for everyone (and that was the only class that I did this for), but it is possible.
Ahh Chemerinsky is amazing! I went to all of my classes, but I probably read only a quarter of the cases assigned. It ended up being my only true A.
I don't know if anyone else felt this way, but I sort of felt like Con Law was generally an abnormality of the first year classes.
« on: June 27, 2008, 04:20:15 AM »
Well, I think it's a pretty heavy mix of both. There are plenty of people who struggle despite trying very hard. But at the same time, my own personal experience is that you can change things drastically.
I don't know that I believe in some sort of on/off switch for "getting" law school. But it certainly comes more naturally to some than others.
« on: June 26, 2008, 10:52:25 PM »
I think this may be time to just discuss some practical aspects to this.
If your concern is simply to end up in DC at a law job, then GW will provide you with more resources to get there. I don't think that DC firms look at GW grads any better than UT ones at all (I suspect the reverse is actually true but can't prove it), but there is a practical aspect to getting a job that isn't just about how a school is looked at.
Career center resources, OCI, contacts, etc. matter. They don't matter because a hiring partner is going to give you a leg up on your competitors, but they matter in getting you that first step. Trying to sift through firms after your 1L year is a dizzying task. There are so many firms out there that seem so similar on paper.
My point in all this is that I don't think there is a real difference in the degrees power at GW in the DC market. What I do think there is is a practical advantage for the average student.
All of this is doubly true if you're looking for non-traditional jobs (i.e. not biglaw) either because that's not what you want to do or because you didn't make good enough grades (and this can happen at either institution). I think if you want to end up in DC at all costs and you end up in the bottom quarter of your class, you're going to want to have more access to resources and alumni in the area.
I hope this post makes sense. It's perhaps colored by my current position looking at which firms to bid for OCI (deadline in three weeks), but I think it's true. I'm considering going back to Texas for summer next year, and most of what I do is use USC's resources. If I were set on going back to Texas no matter what (I'm not. I'd take a better job in LA if I had it), then I'd wish I were at UT to use their far wider Texas resources.
« on: June 26, 2008, 04:31:28 PM »
Having grown up in Texas (and spent a lot of summer days in Austin) and undergrad in DC, I can honestly and truly tell you that I'll take Austin summers over DC ones any day of the week. When people say that DC was founded on a swamp, they aren't lying. It's humid, gross, and not a whole lot cooler than Texas.
That said, summer in DC isn't nearly as long as it is in Austin.
For what it's worth, I'd pick UT easily.
« on: June 26, 2008, 04:23:52 PM »
hmm maybe. But I only had one true closed book exam (I had two where we had a closed book multiple choice section before we had an open book essay section). Personally, I kind of like closed book exams.
« on: June 26, 2008, 12:52:23 PM »
That's pretty funny. I guess that's why USC has gone to a system where professors can either provide closed book or completely open book (notes, books, commercial outlines, etc. all allowed). My con law prof tried to give us a "only class books" test, but the administration stopped her.
However, for some reason they seem not to want us to use our computers even on open book tests.
« on: June 25, 2008, 05:40:50 PM »
don't do it. If you want to practice in the US, get the JD. As someone's mentioned before, you'll end up having to get a LLM anyway, and generally speaking LLMs have a much harder time getting jobs than JDs (take some firms and look at the NALP directory to see what I mean).
Those who practice law in England usually do so either by getting their BA or doing a conversion course from another subject. Then they generally do two years of Trainee Solicitor. LLMs themselves, so far as I know, don't actually qualify you to practice in the UK.
Switching from the US to England is much easier.
« on: June 23, 2008, 12:49:57 AM »
Do you feel that your experience is representative of people with your grade situation? Did any of your classmates who were in your situation have better success by being more focused (e.g., the corporate tax example you gave)? Do you think you would have been better served by looking for some jobs in a low-demand specialty (e.g. admiralty law) where a U of C degree would presumably go further than in generic "biglaw"?
I don't mean to stick my nose into a place where it's not wanted, but I have to quibble with you here. Who wouldn't want to be a pirate lawyer?
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 258