pikey, can you talk about how you came by that job? I assume you didn't just mass-mail the Fortune 500, right?
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
A question that I asked earlier, but I don't think I saw an answer to: What does the ABA get out of accrediting more and more schools?A few things. More member schools and more future attorney members, for one. For another, they keep from getting sued by schools that get denied; both the AMA and ABA have faced antitrust lawsuits that have forced them to modify their practices. It would be seriously illegal for the ABA to say, hey, more law schools devalue current lawyers' salaries, therefore no more new schools! And something tells me an organization of lawyers knows that.
Actually, and more importantly, on what basis would you deny accreditation to any currently-accredited school? I don't mean this theoretically -- I mean, seriously, what sort of bright line can you draw to differentiate Yale from Cooley in terms of quality of education? Most of the lines people want to draw here relate to reputation (not a reason to deny accreditation, since it's subjective), student "quality" (not a reason to deny accreditation, especially since schools claim to rely on more than just LSAT and GPA in admissions), and employment prospects (not a reason to deny accreditation as long as there's no dishonesty, since law schools aren't just trade schools, since not everyone with a JD wants to practice as an attorney, and since anyone with a bar number can hang a shingle). Frankly, there's no real way to know the quality of teaching that goes on anywhere, so all accreditation can do is try to set some minimum standards. Can you cite any evidence at all that the education provided at lower-tier schools is of lower quality than at upper-tier schools? I doubt it.
So, then, on what grounds would the ABA be able to legally reject law schools that meet the standards of accreditation? Or what standards could you devise to limit the number of ABA-approved schools?
For all the people that think tier 4 schools are poo well let me tell you one thing. you are wrong in many ways. Well i agree on one thing you will get a better job right out of law school and yeah you will get in your big law working 80 hrs a week job, and honestly thats what i want to do and that is why i want to transfer to tier 1 school from cooley a tier 4.
Based on the other thread this guy started, I'm leaning toward "not flame", but if that's correct, then... why would you come on here to represent how non-bad your school is by writing a post that completely ignores standards of English grammar? (Yeah, I know, it's "The Internet" but every other poster on here at least uses commas and capital letters...)
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Bottom of the class Chicago grad 3-5 years out. Taking questions for next 5« on: June 22, 2008, 10:34:00 PM »
What's the one piece of law school (and/or law career) advice you wish you had been given (or, that you got and wish you had taken)?
Knowing what you know now, would you still have chosen Chicago? I assume you got, or could've gotten, significant money at more regional schools; did you make the right call to go with the name?
Law School Applications / Re: Finished with undergrad, will going back to finish a minor change anything?« on: June 22, 2008, 06:58:56 PM »
They don't count any classes after your first undergraduate degree is awarded. See here, page 22 (page 24 of the PDF)Correct. Doesn't matter if your school puts it on your UG transcript, the official LSDAS report lists grades by semester, thus any grades listed after your degree was awarded will not be included in the GPA. The only way around this, I would guess, would be if your school gave the credit retroactively for a previous semester, which would only happen in the case of something like replacing an incomplete or finishing an in-progress independent study. Since you didn't mention any unfinished classes, you're stuck with the GPA you've got.
I DO KNOW that any extra grades you can provide as evidence that your low-GPA days are behind you is beneficial to your applications.This is also true. The amount of the benefit, however, is hard to quantify and (I'd guess) would not be worth the amount of work needed for several philosophy classes, unless you'd just be getting the minor because you wanted it and considered any law school admissions benefit to be a bonus.
I worked hard in undergrad to get good grades and studied hard for the LSAT to get my score where it needed to be. EVERYONE wishing to practice law should have to do both as well.
Lots of people don't have to study to do well on the LSAT, or work hard to get good undergrad grades... and many of those people get into elite schools. Considering that neither UGPA nor LSAT score has any relationship to the actual practice of law, that's a ridiculous assertion.
But anyway, regarding "keeping the dream alive" -- why the hate? Really, while there are obviously problems with schools that persistently flunk out huge numbers of 1Ls that were statistically unlikely to do well in law school anyway, and while it's pretty bogus to convince prospective students that a JD from TTTU will grant them a six-figure job... I submit that there is nothing, per se, wrong with law schools that serve as "last resorts" for students with less-than-stellar pre-law credentials. Again, while UGPA and LSAT are somewhat predictive of success in law school, there's no reason to suppose that a guy who blew off undergrad and didn't realize he needed to prepare for the LSAT would do poorly as a lawyer, assuming that he doesn't carry his undergrad mindset into the working world (which most successful people don't). And yet you want to prevent this person from ever gaining access to the bar because he thought a kegstand was more interesting than Philosophy 101?
So, what I'm saying is, IF these schools were more open about their attrition and employment rates, then they should certainly be allowed to exist. If you want to circulate your own rankings, fine, but make it clear where your graduates actually end up. The ABA could help by making these schools be more upfront about post-graduation prospects when they do recruiting. Actually, the ABA should do this with all schools, top to bottom.
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: I want to prepare my mass-mailing: how do I choose which firms for 1L summer« on: June 17, 2008, 03:10:48 PM »
I'll be attending a T10. I want to mass-mail firms in the Midwest in the hopes of landing a summer 1L firm job. how do I start? Which websites are good for picking? What should I be looking for?
Isn't this not allowed until like December? And won't your law school (hopefully?) provide some career guidance between now and then?
I don't know the answer, and even after spending like ten minutes looking for it, I still can't find it. I'm pretty sure it comes from LSAC/the ABA, though. So, my guess is that it's the GPA you were accepted with, because LSAC would have that, while the schools would have to self-report final GPAs, and they would not have undergone the LSAC standardization process (at least in the case of people coming straight from undergrad). So I am fairly confident (though, again, just guessing) that it's your LSAC GPA.
Point two in favor of this theory: Let's suppose that most schools would like their GPA quartiles to be as high as possible. If the "official" GPA were based on final GPAs rather than LSAC GPAs, then it would be much more difficult for AdComms to predict their school's numbers based on the GPAs they accepted. If I were a school operating under that policy, I don't think I'd accept anyone from undergrad until after fall grades came out, because they would still have 25% of the UGPA to go, and anything could happen. The risk would be much less if the GPA were "locked in" when the student got accepted. Since the law schools themselves set the standards for this data, I'm sure they'd opt to be risk-averse.
just don't be so sensitive. I am as patriotic as the next guy, thus my concern.
Sorry about that. It just seems like the "narrative" lately has been all about how America is going down the toilet, and I felt like the way you phrased the question indicated a similar doom-and-gloom mentality that, with a little perspective, is quite unfounded. But it's certainly valid to be concerned about future competitiveness, and to resist the urge to sit back and assume things will take care of themselves. So again, my mistake on maybe reading too much into your post, and I too hope to hear some other thoughts on this.
How long do you think it will be, with the continued lack of power and importance the American economy has on the global stage, before local people start being enticed away in droves? Will this happen at all? I think it is very possible without drastic innovation.Umm, where would we go? It's like those people that always threaten to move somewhere else if X politician gets elected... they never follow through because there isn't anywhere else to go. Other countries have problems, too, and while some of their current policies might be more attractive to certain subsets of people, it's pretty hard to justify going elsewhere when, frankly, your quality of life will not noticeably improve. Western Europe, for instance, is generally more expensive than the US, and if the lure is the social welfare system, remember that most people that would consider (or afford) an overseas move aren't exactly in need of a safety net. Gas is certainly no cheaper there, and while the people may be more "socially liberal" than in most of the US, there's not any higher degree of liberty. So why move?
And what is this "continued lack of power" garbage? While China, India, etc., are gaining prominence, the US is still the big dog in the world economy. Even if China becomes #1 (which may be inevitable, but isn't happening anytime real soon), that's with four times our population -- the average Chinese person will still be working for peanuts AND have no personal freedom. I don't think most sane people make life-changing decisions based on the general macroeconomic climate of a nation-state except as it will matter to them personally.
So where is this brain drain going to? Where are these future young Americans moving, and more importantly, why?