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 - ndun
« on: January 28, 2008, 09:49:06 PM »
I received an email today about upcoming admit events.
The email included the following remark:
The admitted student binders will be mailed out next week
and we are excited to get this information to you as well.
So there you have it ...
« on: January 26, 2008, 03:47:35 PM »
Has anyone received their Fordham binder yet?
I really really want mine.
« on: January 26, 2008, 03:28:21 PM »
I might add that in the Midwest (IL/IN/MI/OH/WI),
where the number of Case grads in private practice
is highest (200 according to Ciolli), the %BIGLAW
is only 20%. I think that's somewhat telling.
Ciolli falls short when he assumes that geography
is solely a matter of personal choice for law grads.
It's a questionable assumption when you're branding
some schools as "regional" ...
« on: January 26, 2008, 03:08:57 PM »
I think this scenario shows one of the major flaws
in the Ciolli methodology.
Specifically, when the number of graduates from
a school practicing in a given region is small,
it is often not a representative sample.
Case's "%BIGLAW" in NY/NJ/PA is 44%, Fordham's is 36%.
The Ciolli numbers for Case are based on 33 grads in
private practice in NY/NJ/PA, versus 1184 Fordham grads.
I bet you the Case grads who came to NY/NJ/PA were
the ones with the best chances at BIGLAW.
It's a self-selected group.
If you were to trot out the whole Case graduating class
to NYC to try to snag BIGLAW jobs, I'd bet that %BIGLAW
would drop drastically.
(Now we wait for Lindbergh to post to this thread about how
Fordham's placement is not what it's cracked up to be.
Seems to be a hobby of his. That and generally bashing NYC.)
I've got nothing against Case -- it's a good school.
I just think if you want NYC BIGLAW, you're better off
going to Fordham. The Ciolli numbers are misleading here.
« on: January 12, 2008, 11:22:43 AM »
Also, have you had to make use of your warranty?
If so, what was your experience?
Finally, please try to keep it civil, especially you Mac-bashers. Posting about compatibility issues that some of your Mac-using classmates had is fine, posting about how Macs are worthless "toys" is a waste of everyone's time.
« on: January 12, 2008, 10:13:17 AM »
(1) Bearly is right about the Manhattan D.A.'s Office.
The only prosecutor I know in the Manhattan D.A.'s Office
made law review at Harvard, and had to work full-time for
a few years first (at Gibson Dunn) to pay off her debt.
Getting the job wasn't easy, either. There were
at least 5 rounds of interviews.
(2) vercingetorix is right about the debt generally though.
You should consider trying to make prosecutor in Brooklyn
or the Bronx. I recently met two former prosecutors
from Brooklyn, and neither one went to a big-name school.
You'll also get better cases in Brooklyn or the Bronx.
The D.A.'s offices there are swamped, and will hand you
stuff much earlier in your career. It's great experience.
The HLS grad I know who's at the Manhattan D.A.'s office
was prosecuting a counterfeit goods case in Chinatown,
last time I checked. Not trivial, but I think Brooklyn might
give you something more exciting early in your career.
(3) Want to hedge your bets? Consider Rutgers or Northeastern.
Rutgers is cheap, Northeastern has co-op and scholarships.
Both are good public interest schools that leave you with
I think CUNY is an iffy choice. On the one hand, I know
a couple of people that go to CUNY law, and they're definitely
smart, passionate people. That said, CUNY may limit your options
if you're not going to do public interest law ... it doesn't
have that great a rep outside the public interest world.
Cheap tuition is great, but you'll still have living expenses
to worry about.
« on: January 10, 2008, 08:34:10 AM »
Before the start of the last contraction in March 2001, the unemployment rate rose just 0.4 percentage point, according to Labor Department figures. The rate barely rose at all ahead of the 1990-91 downturn, one reason why economists consider it a so-called lagging signal.
Business don't usually figure out that they should lay people off, or can start hiring again, until after they've seen their financial results. So there's a delay.
Getting back on topic, I get the impression a lot of people tapped home equity (and credit cards) to get by from 2001 to 2003. They figured that appreciation in home prices would save them -- and may still be in a precarious position, especially if the economy tanks again.
There are a lot of adjustable-rate loans due to reset this year. Fixing the rate may not even solve the problem, though, because some stats suggest that a lot of people are slipping towards delinquency anyway. Putting aside the fact that modifying the contracts without investor consent may unfairly screw investors, the Paulson plan won't even do that much anyway because it only applies to a small fraction of homeowners.
Then there's the problem that the commercial credit market has seized up, the banks are losing money hand and foot, and some banks are running into liquidity problems. Notice how many banks have recently accepted massive cash infusions?
I would argue the commercial credit market problem may be more important than the home equity problem. Investors don't know who to trust, and businesses are having trouble getting money for their day-to-day operations.
Whether we technically end up with a "recession" or not, there are some serious bumps ahead.
« on: January 10, 2008, 08:11:42 AM »
this is why, with few exceptions, people who pass up significant scholarships at lower ranked T1's to go to a higher ranked T1 at full cost (same quality of education) are morons. the debt will take years to pay off. and no, most of us will not get that huge job at biglaw.
I would argue the other way.
If tuition is 50% of your total cost of attendance, then "free tuition" is really only a 50% discount. If the school is giving you a "half tuition" scholarship, you're really only getting a 25% discount.
It's still a hell of a lot of money, but you need to look at it in terms of value.
Say you have two schools, A and B, both with the same tuition, and both with living expenses equal to tuition. If you get a half-tuition scholarship at school B, then school B is still 3/4 of the cost of school A, i.e., school A is 4/3 of the cost of school B.
Is school A worth paying a third more than school B?
Depends on employment/career prospects and depends on what you want to do with your degree.
Two T1 schools can have very different employment/career prospects.
Or the difference might be negligible, in which case it's worth saving the money.
I doubt the decision is clear with "few exceptions."
I think it's very individual depending on your goals and the possibilities the schools offer.
« on: January 10, 2008, 12:13:47 AM »
Broken down CNN-style by LSAT score, GPA, and favorite thread ...
« on: January 10, 2008, 12:11:39 AM »
There should also be a follow-up poll: Which Regular Would You Most Like to AVOID MEETING in Real Life?