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 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 22
« on: June 16, 2008, 01:58:29 AM »
(Assuming you're a US citizen:) There's no cosigner needed on Stafford or Grad PLUS, and those together will meet your cost of attendance.
PLUS requires a "credit check" but I believe you only get rejected if you recently went bankrupt or some similar black mark, NOT just a lack of credit history (because, after all, it's a loan to a student, and in many cases, we're pretty young. And law students are NOT considered dependents, so your parents' background is irrelevant here.).
The federal government created these loan programs to ensure that everyone can get an education regardless of where they came from. Being from a low income background shouldn't hurt you.
« on: June 16, 2008, 01:51:05 AM »
Yeah, even the Unsub Stafford would be better than the PLUS, so I'm not sure why you rejected that first (unless you just didn't like the word "UNsubsidized"?).
Unless you found some super-sweet deal on the PLUS (in which case, tell me what it is!), I believe the order to accept loans is:
« on: June 16, 2008, 01:27:55 AM »
I did e-mail South Texas and gave them all the details. I received a phone call, and was told they basically can't offer anything now, but that 2/3 of the money they have becomes available after your first year.
That raises a red flag for me. I'd want to know why that is. Does that mean that 2/3 of their scholarship recipients lose it after Year One? Or does this mean that they hold back on awarding 2/3 of their aid budget until second year? The latter makes no sense, while the former isn't exactly encouraging.
« on: May 29, 2008, 02:42:22 AM »
Man, reading this thread has made me feel bad about my decidedly undistinguished state-school undergrad. At least I got to see some great football/basketball/hot chicks.
I dunno, whenever somebody new comes on to talk about how their
pretentious undergrad "made my life" or "refuses to bend to the rest of dumbed-down America (or at least didn't in 1987, but then now it does?)", it just makes me happier that I went somewhere where people are actually normal
and not (as) full of *&^%.
It's actually kind of funny -- the original post was all like, "Hey which of these UG schools will help me get into law school?" but then (in the OP!) explicitly refuses to accept the correct answer, which is that it doesn't matter a whole lot. Then all these people come out of the woodwork to justify their own taking on of massive debt for a bachelor's degree (which, given some of their writing skills, was hardly justifiable), while completely ignoring the original question
. Fabulous. Though on the rankings of typical Internet threads, it's like a B- (on a 4.33 scale!!!), since there have been no rickrolls or Godwin's Law invocations yet.
« on: May 29, 2008, 02:29:54 AM »
I am and will likely always be an East Coaster (well, southeast...), so this doesn't have any effect on me. BUT, in the back of my mind, I always sort of think of California and Texas as almost separate countries when it comes to law schools. Like when people say "UT can trump T14 in Texas" that seems believable to me (not saying it's always the case, just that I wouldn't be surprised since it's usually ranked in the top 16-17 and is the local school). I'd buy similar logic for USC and UCLA in California, to say nothing of Berkeley or Stanford.
And then, on the other end, it seems like because California is so huge, lots of the California school lawyers seem to stay in California. So yes, that may depress NLJ250 hiring stats, but it seems likely that people who go to, say, UCLA probably want to work in-state, and probably will be able to get a good job doing that. So neither USNews nor NLJ250 school rankings tell nearly the whole picture... who cares? And for those that want to work outside California, I'm sure UCB, USC and UCLA are known as fine schools -- there just may not be a huge alumni presence outside the region.
This underlines a bigger point about any ranking system: If people use it (NLJ 250 or whatever) to inform their law school decision, as part of a larger body of evidence, that seems like a good idea; if people use this type of data to make their decision, then they probably should not be going to law school to begin with.
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:47:27 PM »
In the future, and for others following this thread, I humbly suggest that a better course to follow would have been to not close the bank account and instead, if/when GG did the auto-debit, then dispute it with your bank. I know my bank (Wachovia) would probably have been sympathetic and at least worked out if I did, in fact, legally owe the debt or not. If I didn't, they would have put the money back in my account; if I did, well, all self-righteousness aside, I should've paid it to begin with so I couldn't complain too much.
Better yet, put it on a credit card that you pay off monthly. Credit cards are required by law to be pretty generous as far as disputing charges. I suspect AmEx telling Gold's to "fvck off" would be taken a little more seriously than you doing it...
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:30:57 PM »
In short, without knowing anything more about your particular situation, I'd say to retake the LSAT if you didn't study much for it and your grades are good. Otherwise, it would probably be best to just start law school this fall or not go if you won't be happy with where you'll be headed.
TITCR, though to reiterate: seriously
, don't start somewhere you won't be happy graduating from. Don't bet on a transfer. And remember that the degree you get now will be the degree that you will have for the rest of your life.
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:26:49 PM »
OP: To me, the original is still the best. A regular (8 oz) Red Bull works much better than a 16 oz Monster, Rock Star, whatever. I drink the normal kind but a friend of mine swears the sugar-free kind prevents crashing, so that's a thought.
Of course, none of these come in bottles. But couldn't you buy some cheap-ass bottled water, dump it out, and refill it with a 16 oz. Red Bull? That's what I'd do.
Then again, the advice about nervous energy is sound. Even as an energy drink superfan, I think I stayed away on LSAT day. I believe my mid-test snack was some kind of peanut bar and water, but that was a year ago and the memory is a bit fuzzy...
« on: May 27, 2008, 01:14:36 AM »
Thank you people for replying to my question. I did look up the lawschoolnumber cite but it seems like there are not many Asian people with similar stats as mine who apply to the schools I mentioned. I am really hoping to get in to Emory or Alabama. It seems though some minority people(not Asian, but Hispanic/Black people) get into schools with comparatively lower numbers. Why is this so? For diversity reasons? If so, would Asian people also have this type of advantage? Well, thanks for your help once again.
Hispanics and blacks are considered "under-represented" in the legal field (I guess a small number of attorneys compared to their proportion of the general population). I do not believe this is the case with Asians, so I doubt that would give you much of an advantage. However
, most of these Asians are likely second- or third-generation Americans; as noted above, being an immigrant yourself might give you a boost that skin color alone would not. Definitely spend a lot of time writing a diversity statement that discusses your personal history... but don't neglect applying to safety schools where you would get in on numbers alone, because it's hard to predict how things will wind up.
« on: May 21, 2008, 03:51:03 PM »
I'm also from the South, have similar goals to yours and want a similar atmosphere. Virginia and Vanderbilt seemed like they would both be good fits for me, and I think you'll find the same.
My numbers were a little better (and in most cases, that's all that matters) and I got into UVA and Vandy with money at both. If you're worried about debt, I've also heard that Washington University in St. Louis gives good money, though I don't know anything about that school firsthand.
Also, when you say your GPA "should improve" -- when are you planning on applying? If you want to start in Fall 2009, then you need to be applying in like October '08 -- so your GPA is going to be the same as it is now (maybe changed slightly if you do summer classes). Even if you wait until January (NOT advisable), your GPA won't be markedly different anyway -- it's hard to make much movement when you've already got three years under your belt. So focus on the LSAT.
You really do need to come back when you have a real LSAT, though -- most people's scores drop on the real thing and a few points completely changes the ballpark to be looking at.
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 22