« on: October 20, 2005, 11:33:52 PM »
What do you mean by wanting to practice business law? That's a pretty gigantic field. Transactional stuff? Litigation? If litigation antitrust? Securities? IP? etc.
Messages - nekko
Location is a part of it but it's more the age of Hastings and number of alumni. Hastings pre-dates Boalt whereas Davis is relatively new. Also a lot of factors not relating to faculty/practitioner reputation are factored in to the rankings which allow Davis to come out on top of Hastings despite different views of the quality of the school.
When I was referring to Summer starters potentially having an employment edge I was referring to 1L summer employment. For regular post-grad employment I don't think there's any difference (assuming you didn't get 1L summer employment at a firm you're thinking of working at). Everyone does interviews and such at the start of their 2L year for their summer jobs following 2L. It is through these summer jobs that many/most people get their post-grad employment. So I'm not sure how you'd be more limited by being a summer starter rather than as a fall starter.
You don't save much being a summer starter v. a fall starter, I think a few thousand at most.
It used to be that you had to take a follow-up class at the end of a subsequent summer (a short class worth like 2 units or something). This has been eliminated starting with the current class. They upped the units so while there are still 3 classes (contracts/torts/legal practice) they are worth 1 unit more than usual 5 v.4, 3 v. 2.
The credentials of the summer starter class I'm told is roughly the same as the fall starter class. The early decision people I think automatically become summer starters so I guess ostensibly they might have lower credentials then others entering. But I believe people who defer are also automatically placed in the summer starter program and they generally have higher credentials than the average starters. Overall I think the LSAT scores/GPAs etc. all turnout around the same with no real differences between the various groups.
The professors are regular professors and at least this year and last year I'd argue they are considered to be some of the better professors at UMich.
Don't know if it helps employment. Theoretically it should as you'll likely have a solid writing sample, have actual law school grades you can show, etc. but I don't know what the actual stats are. In terms of post-grad employment I'm not sure if being a summer starter automatically translates into working earlier. I think some law firms prefer to start all their associates at the same time so you may just have dead times for the equivalent of a semester or something. Of course you could just do some other job or whatever during that time but I think your ability to start right when you graduate is very firm dependent when you're a summer starter. Although I think the career services people say some firms start summer starters with the class prior in terms of step raises. So if you were graduating Dec. 2008 they might associate you with the 2008 class rather than the 2009 class meaning when the 2008 people are getting their raises you'll be getting your raise along with them.
The benefit of the summer starter program is that at least for one semester you'll feel like you're in a really small law school. A library meant to serve 1,000+ will instead be serving about 90+ students. I think it's arguably easier to meet people since it's a much smaller community. Administration I assume is much more accessible since instead of dealing with 1,000 students they're dealing with 90. Ann Arbor is really nice during the summer. You can get housing pretty cheap since most regular students are subletting apartments really cheap during the summer so instead paying say $800 a month you could be paying $400 a month for rent. The downsides of being a summer starter is that not a lot is going on, so if you're really interested in various law school organizations you have to wait until Fall (which is arguably a positive since it focuses you on studying). Also depending on whether you like a big school atmosphere being in an environment of only 90 students could be bothersome. Law school is a pretty small community as it is but being a summer starter is a really small community.
What weapons did Hussein get from the US? I'm aware of the number of grain credits we gave to Iraq. Most of tanks were of Russian make. A lot of the other stuff was Russian or Chinese. They had a number of French weapons and I think got some chemical and possibly biological tech from the Germans. What'd they get from the US?
« on: June 24, 2005, 02:27:18 PM »
I had a 3.34 162/173 split (5 year gap between).
Got into Penn, Georgetown, Northwestern, W/L at NYU. With your better GPA I think you have a very solid chance at getting into all of those schools.
Hasting v. other schools.
I say take UCS/UCLA over Hastings. Hastings over Davis.
Hastings has a lot of alum in SF/CA but I don't think it does much good. In a way there's too many alum so it's not like a tight knit community. Also if there's one thing almost all people who went to Hastings say is that it was cold and impersonal. This isn't the type of environment to build life long alumni connections.
Hastings has a great faculty. I think it's on par with like UCLA/USC/etc. Although part of the reason the faculty is so good is that they have folks who are in semi-retirement and left their old schools. So these folks are brilliant but more likely to be ancient which may or may not be good.
I don't think you should pick UCLA/USC over Hastings based on some sort of reputational difference in the region. It's not like SF people are unaware of UCLA/USC, it is in the same state after all.
I would not go to Hastings with the expectation that you could go to Hastings and graduate at the top of your class because it has a weaker student body than say USC/UCLA. It is a weaker student body but not so much that it would make a significant difference in your standing going to one school v. another.
clever, you are saying that "fixing" is refering to the way Bush was arguing the facts to a predetermined outcome in the same way a legal advocate would. if Bush had a predetermined outcome like attacking Iraq way back in November then all his statements about using war as a last resort and not having made up his mind were disingenuous.I don't understand this position. The President just can't go to war. For it to even be an option you have to make the case for it. In making this case you have to present why war is justifiable. Even if you would prefer not to have to go to war but want war as an option you would still have to create a basis for it. It's like if you wanted to raise the age of retirement. You couldn't just do it, you'd have to build a case for it and explain why the facts were such that it should be done. Now maybe you'd be perfectly willing to forgo raising the retirement age in favor of some other solution but if you don't make the case for raising the retirement age that option is completely off the table.
Plus, the way that the Pres talked about the WMD, it was like he knew where they were and indeed RUmsfeld said he knew where they were (north, south, east and west of baghdad dbag)Wait do we believe the Downing Street memos as accurate characterizations of knowledge at the time or not? If so then they clearly state that the belief was Iraq had the capability of producing Biological weapons within days. As far as I know biological weapons fall under the WMD heading. They also specifically stated there was a ready chemical weapons capability. Generally chemical weapons are also placed into the WMD category (I don't think they belong there though).
To fix the facts around a policy of war, even in the way that you are describing, and a policy of a war of choice is terribly sinister.I don't see that at all. By that I mean, if you think a certain policy is the best choice how would you argue it other than by fitting the facts around that policy? Isn't that how advocacy works? Also you're looking at things in isolation rather than part of the overall picture. As I said, if you want war to even be an option you have to make the case for war. Also though let's say you just want to reimpose the inspections regime. If that's the case, in this instance you also have to make the case for war. As the Downing street memos say and as others have said in order to put sufficient pressure on Saddam to comply a credible threat of war was necessary. You can't have a credible threat of war if you don't in fact get yourself ready for war. In what way would you be able to convince Saddam that you were ready to go to war without making moves to advocate for war?
And your reading of the term "fix" is in the most generous way that one could read it. Even then it makes the Pres disingenuous and untrustworthy.I don't think it's generous. The memo didn't seem to hesitate when it felt that things weren't accurate (such as their doubt in the terrorist angle). So if they thought the intelligence was inaccurate I doubt they wouldn't have said so. And really why would they say the facts were inaccurate where their own facts commented on the ability of Hussein to produce Bio/Chem weapons, likely inability of getting the UN to force compliance, Ground war being the only method to ensure both regime change and reintegration of Iraq into the international community, etc.
But if you read it another way, the author of the memo could have been saying that Bush was fabricating the factsSee above.
Knowing what the problem was going to be, they should have had a plan to mitigate that problem. instead it is a game of wait and see.I don't know about that. I mean you don't make any distinctions from mistakes and mistakes for which there should be blame assigned. By that I mean in any policy there's going to be unanticipated events or events which you can anticipate but really you do the best that you can. Sometimes you don't have enough troops. You want to mitigate that shortcoming. But sometimes the only way to mitigate that shortcoming is to have more troops and sometimes the world is imperfect and you can't have more troops and you have to make do with what you have. Now there are certainly mistakes but without specifically mentioning them it's hard to analyze and there has to be some understanding of what we are comparing things to? Are we comparing against the perfect? The reasonable?
Going back to the "war of choice" argument. Give me a sequence of events. What is your big picture? If we go with the idea that it was a war of choice then I think it's important to try to work through the other options. What result do we get if we had just let the sanctions regime die? What result would we get if we just tried to reimpose the inspections? Etc. As it is, the way people argue is to present some mythical perfect policy v. the imperfect policy of war. Of course war will fail this test but that's not useful in either understanding whether war in this instance was a good idea.
BTW-Thread getting kind of unwieldy with a lot of extraneous stuff. May not post again on this thread.
the damaging part is that eh fixed the intelligence around the policy. i do not that is or should be a tactic of politicians in a free democracy. that to me is incredibly damagain because it came from a third party, objective, nonpartisan source. Are you in favor of presidents fixing the facts around their policy.
Has some really great professors
Solid rep throughout CA (and Hawaii actually)
Employment problems, particularly if you want to work in SF. There's so many Hastings grads in the area and competition from Stanford/Boalt folks that it's hard for a lot of Hasting people who are at or below the median to find work.
Almmost universally described as cold and impersonal (although the students from Hawaii are said to be fun).
Some people say it's a particularly competitive law school although that may have changed (don't know if they still publicly list grades, etc. which would encourage a competitive atmosphere).