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 - Bulldog86
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 22
« on: June 26, 2008, 05:16:23 PM »
It won't be easy to accomplish that goal. Here is the super-secure (right...) email I got from LSAC 11 months ago...
Dear Joe Blow,
LSAC account number: L 123456789
Your June 11, 2007 LSAT score is ###. The percentile rank is ##.
Followed by instructions for accessing the stuff online.
So, the only way I can think of to avoid seeing your score would be ignoring the email you get from LSAC and then having someone you trust help you navigate to the item response and whatnot, telling you "OK, you can open your eyes now". This assumes that your score is neither phenomenally good or bad, because good luck having someone not say: "Ohmygod, that's amazing!" ... Maybe find someone who knows nothing about it and tell them it's a 0-300 scale or something ;-)
« on: June 26, 2008, 01:58:52 PM »
Sucks for G-Town
Nah, then we could finally have a nice round "top 15"... You know GULC trolls aren't going anywhere!
« on: June 25, 2008, 01:25:42 AM »
Not directly on topic, but you might want to edit his name out of this thread (and ask any follow-ups to do the same), since there's a decent chance that he or someone else will Google his firm's name and find this thread. Not a killer, but it might be embarrassing (especially if you get the job!).
« on: June 24, 2008, 05:45:02 PM »
socialists and fascists are nearly the same in practice... where's the anarchist candidate?
See Ron Paul discussion upthread...
« on: June 24, 2008, 03:31:18 PM »
My numbers were a little better but I got around 75% off at Georgia (where I'm in-state). I didn't apply to Alabama, but I think I've heard they're fairly generous. I think employment-wise, either of those would be alright, especially if you wanted to work in the SE.
I've also gathered on here that WashU in St. Louis is pretty scholarship-friendly too, and it looks from LSN like your numbers would've been competitive for good money there this past cycle (though it's a private school in a decent-sized city, so the cost of attendance would start higher). Really, you should just check LSN, maybe starting at WUStL and working your way down, and see what people with similar numbers got this time. If your main concern is money, I would guess that applying to a lot of places that you would consider attending and see who bites would be your best bet.
« on: June 24, 2008, 02:47:35 PM »
I don't 100% understand what you're asking, but I think the general rule is that LSDAS GPA is the only thing that matters.
I think UGPA might be a soft factor if there's a big difference and an upward trend (which I think is your case?) but it seems to me that if you're talking about the difference between a 3.32 and 3.23 on the GPA that matters, versus dropping .02 on the GPA that doesn't, I would maximize the LSDAS GPA and submit at the end of the summer. I suppose being Canadian might change things, but I doubt it.
Also, I would not be surprised if LSAC/schools required you to keep your transcripts updated whenever you get new grades, which would make this a moot point.
« on: June 24, 2008, 02:36:21 PM »
This is a silly poll. If you said 'dead last at HYS', everyone would choose that.
Everyone? Really? I find that hard to believe... I wouldn't have.
« on: June 23, 2008, 04:42:50 PM »
Where do you want to practice after graduation? Ranking is often less important than region when dealing with non-national schools.
« on: June 23, 2008, 03:32:19 PM »
I'm an incoming 1L interested in a career in administrative law/constitutional law/politics. My school offers a 3 year JD/MGA (Masters in Government Administration) dual degree. What are the merits of getting a degree like this? Positives and Negatives?
My dad has an MPA (Public Admin) and one of my best friends is about to start work on his. Never heard of MGA, but I'd guess it's similar. It can be quite helpful if you want to run a city or something, but I wonder if it would be useful to a regular lawyer in private practice. I guess my question would be, what is your ultimate career goal(s), and would this degree give you any advantage in that field?
When you say "administrative law/constitutional law/politics" -- what does that mean? Does that mean you want to work for the feds? Or that you want to be a firm lawyer that one day runs for something? The thing is, or at least it seems to be from my (limited) experience, that MPA is sort of a professional degree on its own, where you go into urban planning or city management or some such, often doing internships along those lines. I can imagine an MGA being something of an asset to a city attorney, for example, but maybe not as much if you're working at the DOJ or at a firm with corporate clients.
Still, if it's a three-year program (rather than four like I think a lot of MBA/JD are), that means you're not giving up a whole year to do it, which means it's less opportunity cost. Then again, if you're getting a Master's during your three years of law school, that likely means you'd be overloaded with classes in 2L and 3L (and maybe 1L summer?), which might hurt your GPA or prevent you from taking some other opportunities. You might ask the school if they have some alumni of the program you could contact and see if they found it worth the extra effort.
« on: June 23, 2008, 03:19:54 PM »
Part of the reason to regulate is to ensure some sort of decent quality of life for its practitioners. Like it or not, a big portion of that simply comes down to money. The more schools, and subsequent de-valuing of the J.D. (of course, not a proven correlation), in turn can lead poor job prospects. Poor job prospects often means poor quality of life (again, this is just the way it is; I'm not arguing for the way it should be).
"Regulating the profession" seems to be kind of a mystery. It's not clear what it all entails, but I have to feel that part of it should include the welfare of those who will end up practicing.
Is this true? I think many attorneys tend to see themselves as a type of public servant (even in non-PI jobs), since they act as officers of the courts to connect the laypeople with the laws that govern them. So in that sense, I think the regulation of the field is more about ensuring that everyone gets a basic level of representation, rather than ensuring every attorney a basic level of compensation.
Hell, even with jobs that don't purport to have a critical role in the republic, regulation is usually more about protecting the public than protecting the practitioner. Think about some other licensed professions like hairdresser or cab driver. Do we regulate those jobs because we want the public to have some expectation of competence, or do we do it because we think a hairdresser has some sort of inherent right to a high income? I don't think restricting the supply of labor for the purpose of raising profits is legitimate.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 22