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 - MCB
« on: May 08, 2010, 11:39:02 PM »
As for the other issue, no bunnies you don't know the question, but thats the easy part. The issue is having the elements and the laws memorised,
Actually, the memorization is considered the easy part at the top schools, which is why they don't bother testing you on your ability to memorize. Hence, open-book. (Frankly, it doesn't make much difference anyway because you end up memorizing most of the stuff just by creating outlines or other study materials. If you're actually looking for the answer to a legal question during the exam, something's gone terribly wrong.)
I agree with this. I find the open book exams to be much more challenging, at least to ace. This is because you basically get no credit for the strict memorization you've done (the easy part of what you're doing when you're studying in law school!). The grades are given based on a curve as everyone here knows, and if all the students have an outline giving them black letter answers, then essentially the entire significant part of your exam grade turns on the depth and quality of your analysis.
I never get how students seem relieved when they find out that an exam will be open note/open book. Maybe if you were the ONLY one allowed to have notes, then it would help you. But since everyone has them, we all just end up canceling each other out on the easiest parts! I was talking to a fellow student about this exact thing earlier today, and we theorized that professors like to go open note because the overall quality of exam probably goes up. Which of course, doesn't benefit students so much as it benefits them.
I doubt it has much to do with not wanting to stress us out.
« on: April 23, 2010, 11:23:41 PM »
UPON FLUNKING OUT OF LAW SCHOOL...HOW DO I GET BACK IN? Should I consider applying to a new school? Or is that not recommended because the new school has some way of knowing that I flunked out? Should I try and develop a relationship of understanding with my current school and let them see how much I have improved and see if they'll readmit me? Should I sit out? How many years?
Honestly, I don't want to sit out. I would rather keep going! I have finally gotten the picture. I know how to excel in law school.
Assuming that going back really is the best path for you... look up the school's specific rules regarding how to re-enter. There may be different steps you need to take, depending on how bad your GPA was, and depending on exactly what you mean when you say 'flunk out'. Like, were you forcibly kicked out? Anyway, that stuff is all school-specific, so just check the rules and confirm your plan with the school administration.
As far as applying to a new school, I would assume that all schools are going to know about your past poor performance.
« on: March 29, 2010, 06:28:26 PM »
Is this a problem?
« on: March 20, 2010, 12:15:10 PM »
I agree with most of what's been said in this thread, but I'd like to add one additional point that sprung to mind as I was reading the original post.
Writing on forums like this also entails a key aspect that doesn't apply to humanities-type papers nor legal writing; it's totally voluntary. You aren't being graded and there aren't any formulas you have to follow or topics selected for you. For me, the inherent pressure of any assigned writing is what sucks some fun out of writing. Internet forums are inherently going to be a different exercise altogether than anything you're doing for school, or even for a client, in terms of style, time, and content pressures. So yeah, I don't know if you can use a like for posting online as any kind of basis for a talent in legal writing.
« on: March 18, 2010, 01:31:34 AM »
Was she an at at-will employee? Bosses can sh*t can employees for all sorts of reasons, outside of explicitly prohibited ones like racial/discriminatory reasons. I don't see why they'd bother framing someone with a drug test. Wrongful termination is a higher standard than a lot of people seem to think. Now, if they go on to deny her unemployment benefits due to gross misconduct, she may have a case to get those benefits reinstated. But wrongful termination, that's a real uphill battle for most people. Just my layman's opinion, of course, as I'm just a law student.
As far as slander, what's the case for this? Did the employer tell anyone other than your friend about her drug test results? If so how did she suffer as a result of this?
Also maybe I've become a jaded a**hole, but I can't get myself to believe that this is actually about your friend and not you.
« on: March 18, 2010, 12:30:26 AM »
I concur with the sentiment that Malibu offers a nicer quality of life, and quality of life is a serious concern when choosing a school. However, Malibu is FAR from other parts of L.A., and specifically, anywhere you might get a legal internship or have an interview. "LA" covers a very large area and Malibu is on the extreme outskirts, particularly when you consider traffic. And outside of job concerns, Malibu is a very quiet town and inconveniently far from most socially appealing parts of LA.
Loyola is located in a toilet bowl in the middle of filthy, smog-ridden downtown, but that's exactly where all the firms are. Like, you could walk from campus to many downtown firms. And even though there is a lot of traffic, you aren't going to be that far away from some much cleaner, livable, interesting areas. So there's a pretty extreme trade off going on between these two choices. Definitely visit both. You may fall in love with Pepperdine, you may actually like Loyola.
My anecdotal experience is that I've seen many more Loyola grads in LA firms than Pepperdine grads, but that could have to do with the sheer number of graduates that Loyola produces vs. Pepperdine. An absolute top student at either school may have a decent shot at Big Law, but I wouldn't make any decisions based on the assumption that you will do that well at any school. All that said, I also got into these two schools and would have chosen Loyola for practical concerns (and also because I am an LA native and impervious to smog) but decided to relocate to San Diego in the end. Whatever you decide, congrats and good luck!
« on: February 13, 2010, 04:09:31 AM »
You sound like a real gem.
She does sound like a gem! Hilarious.
As far as Hornbooks (way to make the conversation boring guys
)... I usually find the Examples and Explanations ones really helpful, and they seem to be popular.
« on: January 22, 2010, 04:49:24 PM »
I have OCIs with both navy and marine JAG this Tuesday. The only info. I really have available to me regarding what these jobs truly entail is whatever I can find on the internet, so hearing about anyone else's firsthand experience would be wonderful. Any general info. or tips would be greatly appreciated!
« on: January 18, 2010, 07:19:30 PM »
I think there's an element of luck, but as someone who did consistently well on exams, I'd like to think that luck was only a small part of it, though I'm obviously biased. I did, however, take some exams I thought I aced that I didn't do so well in, and took some I was worried about that I ended up acing.
So, my guess is that I had a little bad luck, and a little good luck. But you still need a solid foundation of knowledge if you hope to have enough "luck" to get an A. I think part of the "luck" mystique comes from disillusioned law students who spent lots of time studying but didn't do so well. To them, what else could they attribute their mediocre grades but luck? The person surfing the internet in class in front of him who did better on the exam must have been "lucky."
But, to keep some perspective, I don't know anyone who did well without doing any work--not to say that people who do well have no lives, but a certain baseline is required. You have to familiarize yourself with all the material, through whatever method works for you, and, before you take the exam, you have to have an idea how to apply the material to fact scenarios you have not yet seen (usually through practice exams).
Some luck may also come from differences among professors, particularly in 2nd and 3d year courses.
And, you could always get sick, or have some distracting personal matter arise, right around exam time.
But overall, I find myself agreeing with Thomas Jefferson: "I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
This is a fantastic post. And based on my experience, I agree with all of it. Even those blessed with photographic memory and 'good luck' as far as the curve goes need to study in law school. It is important to study smart though, and use methods that are effective. There's so much information to master, I can see why many students frustratingly waste a lot of time and energy spinning their wheels.
« on: January 12, 2010, 04:05:13 PM »
The only thing that makes me feel otherwise is looking at the lists of some of the 1 tier schools of where their students did their undergrads. The top ranked law schools usually come from top ranked under-grad schools. That is probably because those people really did receive a better education and are better prepared for the LSAT but I was just wondering if anybody had any opinions on that.
Better education? Bah. Call me a cynical old a-hole, but I think the connection you are noticing has much more to do with the fact that students who test well enough to get into top undergrads in the first place are the most likely to also test well and get into top law schools.
I've heard of pre-law majors still existing at some schools though it's rare, as it should be. I thought that's what you meant when you said you were pre-law.