|
|
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 - Rule of Reason
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 41
51
« on: July 23, 2007, 12:11:23 AM »
About how well would a student have to do coming from a top 30 school to transfer into the T14? Does Undergraduate GPA/LSAT score still have weight?
this is hearsay coming from me but to my understanding: Yale/Harvard/Stanford are supposed to be the only ones who still care about the LSAT --- grades are supposed to be just about the only thing everywhere else- maybe soft factors help a bit? If you want to know where you need to be in your class to transfer into a school, then I'd recommend contacting admissions and asking - they should clue you in. I inquired at a school in this fashion just for kicks -- the admissions rep told me where I'd need to be after 1L to be in good shape if I wanted to transfer.
52
« on: July 22, 2007, 05:30:58 PM »
1. (re public schools / in-state advantage): Being in-state might help A LITTLE at a public school --- but not exceptionally, so don't make an assumption based on that. I remember actually calling U of Minnesota (as a potential out of state applicant) and they told me they "technically" favor in state ppl in their formulas, but the role that plays is so small that it is very unlikely to be a deciding factor in an admissions decision. (on the other hand, they might set a target of at least 40-50% in staters or whatever they decide--- maybe toughness on that varies w/ the cycle and who applies).
2. (do private schools consider your location?) -- Here's my idea of that: You might have another slight advantage in applying to a school that is close to you -- I don't think it's necessarily b/c of the STATE you're in, but the GENERAL LOCATION. I'm from the Chicago area, and got into Depaul/Loyola/Kent --- in fact, I heard back from them almost immediately... but most of the other schools that I applied to that had similar stats/ rankings, but were further away, either rejected or waitlisted me. I got the idea that schools were "NUMBERS-CONSCIOUS" re acceptances (e.g. they didn't want to give away more than x # of acceptances that people didn't enroll off of --- SO the waitlist is an effective mechanism for avoiding that problem, b/c they might figure you're less likely to go there if you live far away... if you are really serious about that school, you live far away, and you are a close call for admissions, they can simply WL you. Then, you'll follow up, and they might take you on if it works out...). Again, I think this is far from a primary factor - LSAT and GPA are like 90% of it outside head-turning circumstances.
lawschoolnumbers.com helped me alot in terms of gettting an idea of all this (plus the $$$ aspect)... good luck!
53
« on: July 21, 2007, 11:07:57 PM »
I'm full of "I wish I would have known that" type of advice that I would love to share with you all. Feel free to ask me any questions..
how bout an elementary 0l-1L rundown: When to start outlining / what to use when creating outlines / what techniques work for study groups (do you go over outlines or do stuff that's more interactive like hypos, etc) / most helpful primers and study aids / What's a hornbook? (sorry its killing my little brain) / how to approah that 2 hr writing class as a 1L / any intanglibles with classes and professors at loyola worth considering / is it worth studying abroad if you can find a good reason to? ... if you can address ANY of that it would be a big help, thanks!
54
« on: July 20, 2007, 12:26:24 AM »
to address one part of the OP's question, someone had posted this previously. The first # is the amt of 2L transfers and the second must have been the initial class size...
TRANSFER STATS (2006?)
Increases Class Size by over 20%
Illinois (41) (184)
Washington/St. Louis (51) (241)
Increases Class Size by over 15%
Northwestern (40) (233)
Georgetown (100) (587)
Increases Class Size by over 10%
W&L (18) (125)
Boalt (37) (268)
Emory (28) (207)
Vanderbilt (24) (190)
NYU (51) (444)
UCLA (38) (336)
Columbia (41) (383)
Penn (25) (248)
Michigan (37) (370)
Increases Class Size between 8% and 10%
Cornell (18) (187)
Chicago (18) (192)
Virginia (34) (373)
Fordham (38) (470)
Notre Dame (16) (198)
Increases Class Size between 5% and just under 10%
Stanford (12) (171)
BC (17) (254)
Harvard (34) (557)
W&M (13) (215)
GW (33) (558)
Minnesota (15) (257)
Increases Class Size by under 5%
Duke (10) (205)
Yale (9) (191)
Washington ( 8 ) (179)
USC (9) (214)
Wisconsin (11) (306)
Texas (14) (440)
BU (6) (269)
Iowa (4) (210)
UNC (4) (229)
55
« on: July 18, 2007, 03:56:06 PM »
X 3 on free pizza and beer.
Honestly, if you have a level head and are able to adapt, I don’t think any kind of prep work is going to be counterproductive. You may learn some sly little law school tricks, or, you may not, but its worth the effort if all you’re doing is walking around Chicago—aimlessly—looking for good watering holes to further destroy your liver (such as myself). You put it best…meh. Oh, how is LEEWS working out for you? Do feel as if it is making you a more cunning law student? I guess we’ll find out December-ish time. And as for our face book group, talk about lame-o; there is only one member. Going to have to remedy that, for shizzle.
I am not looking forward to orientation. Did you see the schedule and how packed it is? And I bet their going to have some Ben Stein replica (Visine commercial Ben Stein, not “Win Ben Stein’s Money” Ben Stein) up there talking for hours, ugg.
fyi by "counterproductive" I just meant about "case-briefing" --- several prep-book people (including the LEEWS guy and Delaney) have emphasized that law students tend to over-do this while in school and after a while it can even get them concentrating on the wrong things... but I guess it's still an important thing to be able to do precisely and efficiently??? I'm not going to act as if I know. If you need a good laugh pick up Planet Law School - that guy is a spazz-o-deluxe... I'm sure there's truth to what he says but all in all sounds like the guy has some issues. (edit: I did go through some of his suggested "prepwork" though)
56
« on: July 18, 2007, 03:46:16 PM »
I am not entirely against public schools either, in most cases, but I think that by locking the poor into bad public school systems we perpetuate their problems, and reduce the opportuntity to succeed for those children. So instead of letting them go to bad schools you fix it so they cant afford schools at all?
Vouchers force schools (even public schools) to compete -- and that will create better schools. How would this work in reality?
1. yeah captin sounds like the solution most ppl give thought to about the school system is granting more funding from "higher up" levels of government (state and federal) and thus less containment to the low-funding results ensured by being in a poverty-stricken school district. Privatizing the system is taking the funding jurisdiction a level down from the districts (obviously) and thus contains poverty-stricken individuals to, well, poverty-stricken funding for schooling. I don't see how that could do anything but harm the situation. 2. Re: vouchers I don't see how this has to be an either-or thing politically: Ppl tend to say or imply (generally, when you look at the standpoints of the national politicians) either (a) you're for vouchers or (b) you're for reforming the public school system. Why not both??? I do realize there is a paradox in that vouchers essentially assign what would be public $$ to private schools, but it is still possible to attack the problem from both angles, albeit it would take a big increase in funding. If poorly-funded education is a big gaping wound, vouchers are like band-aids. They might help only a little -- but they ARE helping the people involved with those schools. I also have to say that clearly the "libertarian" value of separating church and state on this particular issue takes a back seat to providing quality education --- this is hardly an issue to be pressed. If anyone thinks otherwise I can spell it out but I think that's basically agreed upon, right?
57
« on: July 18, 2007, 12:18:13 PM »
As a side note, are any of you guys participating in the pre-law school pre-class stuff? I said screw it, why waste the summer, but it could be helpful, you know? I just purchased the Delaney series pubs that cover legal briefing and law school exams, and plan on cracking them beginning August. I hear they really do the trick. I am not doing as much as I planned on, but I'll get through enough to be content. It's really just out of boredom, why I'm going through with this undirected prepwork... figure it can't hurt. I like the Delaney stuff and I'm working on LEEWS now -- they should go over case briefing with us at orientation or at the beginning of classes i think, right? -- I'm wondering why Delaney has the whole book and method on case briefing when he and others say it's not that important and could even be counterproductive if overemphasized? Meh, he probably explains that too... Looking forward to the "FREE PIZZA AND BEER" at Beck's Bookstore on Friday, August 17th.
58
« on: July 17, 2007, 05:31:06 PM »
I'll be back... I think we're headed somewhere but we'd move along faster with a teleconference 
59
« on: July 17, 2007, 04:09:24 PM »
He was making a distinction btw stuff like this (B) and "rights", which call for govt to restrict the private sector (e.g. civil rights, property rights). With the examples in (B), the govt (or some form of govt) becomes an employer (monopolistic, when necessary) in the market so that people are willing to take up the work and provide the service...
I'm not trying to be facetious, but could you rewrite that? I don't understand what you're saying.
I was just seconding Rearden's definition of "rights" (a govt restriction on the private sector to protect the individual / a given entity). Normally you would think of a right as a restriction on others, i.e., I have a right to privacy, right to property, etc. You wouldn't think of a right as a claim on another person's work, i.e., I have a right to healthcare, a right to vacation, etc. Saying people have a right to things necessary to live (as I think Keno did) doesn't solve the problem either since you would still be defining rights in terms of demands on the works of others. (B) (that I referred to) was an item from one of your posts --- referred to the things ppl like to call "rights" (or providers thereof) but technically are in the domain of public service (e.g. police, teachers, judges, prosecutors, etc.) Then I was spelling out with that category that the govt supplies it either by (a) becoming an active player in the market (as with teachers, medicare etc) or (b) becoming the sole provider of it when that is necessary/appropriate (e.g. the judicial system, law enforcement).
60
« on: July 17, 2007, 03:18:44 PM »
That's not what I'm saying. While we guess that there would be fewer doctors if doctors are paid less, I don't really care to prove that point or argue about it. I'm saying that it is problematic to classify the services of a group of people as a "right." A service is not a right.
Those are all problematic as well, but when it comes to police I think there is a difference in that the service police provide could only rightly be provided by government--monopoly on legitimate use of force and all that.
A) Except when it is.
B) So police is not completely congruous. But, what about the others (include teachers, judges, and prosecutors as well)? And on the basic notion of a public service that concept applies. We would have to force them to do it if everyone decided they didn't want to.
He was making a distinction btw stuff like this (B) and "rights", which call for govt to restrict the private sector (e.g. civil rights, property rights). With the examples in (B), the govt (or some form of govt) becomes an employer (monopolistic, when necessary) in the market so that people are willing to take up the work and provide the service...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 41
|
Discussion
Resources