Law School Discussion

Show Posts

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 - nekko

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29]
Law School Admissions / Re: Asians - Model Minority?
« on: July 14, 2004, 05:55:53 PM »
the model minority myth is exactly that - a myth.  when the doors of immigration were swung open to asians in 1969, a flood of them came into this country, already armed college educations and bringing along their families' inheritance.  so when you see many middle to upper middle class asians, its not that they "worked their way up", but that they were already in that economic situation to begin with.  it should be pointed out that these immigrant families, many times, came from the elite class of their native countries.  sending their 2nd generation kids to college was not a hope but expectation, hence the high rate of asian enrollment at top universities. 

think about it - it costs money to open a subway, or a dry cleaners for that matter.

but as always, there are exceptions.         

Where in the world do you get this information from??? Rich asians weren't flooding the US. Rich asians were for the most part staying put because rich Asians were well, rich and didn't need to go somewhere else to find opportunities unlike the vast majority who were in poverty. What inheritances were these rich asians getting? Let me tell you folks from Communist China weren't immigrating to America with vast sums of wealth, Taiwan was a developing country as was Korea. By your 1969 date the only really established Asian country from which rich asians would really be able to come from was Japan but even Japan is debateable as it was hardly rich at the time. As to money to buy cleaners, markets, etc. you've seen where these establishments (at least initially) are right? Those Korean markets were/are not started in areas where you need significant amounts of money to start them up.

Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students / Re: who likes experience?
« on: July 09, 2004, 04:28:18 PM »
Just one more comment about BigLaw is the nature of BigLaw that only about 1 in 9 associates will make it to partner. So, the firms aren't really looking for candidates that display the qualities of maturity you (dta) alluded to in one of your previous posts. The firms really want smart kids that don't make a ton of mistakes and will do 70 hours of grunt-work a week and love it (never complain, etc.). Most BigLaw firms have reputations for being 'sweat-shops'...believe me, they've earned these reputations. They don't want to hire some thirty-year-old guy who knows better.
I don't think you're right to the extent that I don't think firms really care about age when hiring associates. Whether your thirty or twenty-five I don't think makes a difference to big firms since the attrition rates are so high anyway. A lot of the first years are going to be gone by year two or year three anyway so does it really make a difference whether the person is 25 or 40? I don't think so and at least have not seen it reflected. It seems intuitive that younger associates would be more willing to work longer hours but I've not seen this reflected in actual practice and considering most upper level associates and junior partners work hours at least as insane as first year associates it seems unlikely that they would think someone their own age couldn't hack the time. Sure most associates do tend to be younger but that's largely I think because most law students are younger, particularly at the top law schools.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Amazed and freaked out...
« on: July 09, 2004, 10:34:52 AM »
I've heard that too, that law schools like people with some work experience.  But quite frankly, I think its a bunch of crap. 

I think to an extent you're right if you know what you want to do it doesn't make much sense making someone delay to supposedly get more perspective or whatever but at say the top schools the type of turnover and dissatisfaction among the top grads is probably fairly high (at least for a group of people coming out of a top school in their field). Perhaps it's just because I work at a big firm I see it more but such a huge number of associates burnout and get out of law completely or totally take a new direction in their legal practice that I can see a top school wanting people to have more experience. I think it might be a problem that's more acute at top schools than others since I think people from top schools are more likely to think they are meant for something better than what lower level associates usually do and also I think grads from top schools are more likely to work at big firms where turnover is especially high. But there just seems to be so many grads coming out of Yale, Harvard, etc. that come to the big firms and somehow don't realize that they're not going to be arguing in the Supreme Court in year 1 and don't fully comprehend what it means to have to bill the type of hours needed at a big firm. Also a lot just don't seem to be very good at the working side of law as opposed to the academic side. In other words they very bright (in some instances extremely bright) but they're just not very good at working with their staff, other associates or even partners. Not that this any of this applies to you (since you've worked for quite some time it appears) but I can see the argument a law school would make and see why it isn't simply a requirement created arbitrarily.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: for all those who have taken the lsat
« on: July 07, 2004, 08:24:55 PM »
I took about 5 LSATs the final two weeks. 3 the week prior and 2 just before (Fri and Sat. with the LSAT on Monday).

Law School Admissions / Admissions/Personal Statement Consultants
« on: July 07, 2004, 08:11:35 PM »
Has anyone ever used the various admissions consultants/essay services like or, essay edge, etc.? What has been your general experience with them?

Law School Admissions / Re: Anti-Trust and Securities Schools?
« on: July 07, 2004, 08:08:25 PM »
I concur with the idea that overall reputation and location are more important. I don't know of law school specialization being a big factor or at least none of the antitrust lawyers I've worked with seem to have gone to schools with a particular antitrust specialization above and beyond the normal reputation of the school. University of Iowa has Herbert Hovenkamp. I personally wouldn't want to go to Iowa (although who knows maybe I'll apply) but he's a frequently quoted authority in antitrust briefs and cases. I think I've seen his publications quoted in every major antitrust brief I've seen.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29]