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 - cisforcookie
« on: February 12, 2008, 03:08:27 PM »
i'm not entirely sold on this thread not being a flame. in any case. i would happily take a free ride to _any_ school 7-14 over paying sticker price at the top 6.
this comes with a few caveats and explanations
1. i don't want to be a bitchboy for pepsicola, let alone make partner for my clever pepsicola connections
2. the only supreme court justice who I have the slightest respect for is JPS, and he'll probly be dead by the time I graduate
3. just talking tuition, 120k is a ton of money. that's several years living expenses if you wanted to go solo. it's half of a house from where i'm from.
4. i would really prefer not to attend duke or penn.
5. i think legal academia is something of a fraud. that would nag at my conscience.
« on: February 12, 2008, 07:17:05 AM »
but what about humidity levels? 90 degrees in DC sure sucks 10 times worse than 90 degrees in arizona, which is downright pleasant.
« on: February 11, 2008, 09:34:08 PM »
About right. Risk v. $ is a tough choice.
I think this is definitely an underappreciated point in this argument. The real "risk" that people going to law school face is the debt. That's why you have all these jdunderground xoxox piss and vinegar websites, because people are terrified of being stuck with 150k in debt and no way to pay it down. And that's why T14 means so much, because of the guarantee of not being stuck with the debt. Sure, some people fantasize about being really rich, and alot of people just want to be the best because they're competitive, but it's the fear that truly drives them. Or so I think.
I can't count the number of "everyone goes into law interested in public interest and comes out a lawyer for verizon" stories. These people aren't coming out thinking that working for the man is fun. It obviously sucks or we wouldn't have just as many "5th year biglaw associates at end of road, begging to become AUSAs" stories. They're coming out with 150k in debt and no other way to pay it off. The reason people go into contract work is because those jobs pay alot more than entry level in alot of legal positions. They're paying 8 percent + principal on 150k. They can't afford to take a 50k a year position with a smaller firm or state agency, even if those jobs are likely to be much more fulfilling and lead to a strong and interesting practice.
« on: February 08, 2008, 07:53:36 PM »
I must admit, I haven't seen an inconvenient truth. In fact, I'll go one better. I don't really know if global warming is happening. Don't really care. What I do care about is that there are obvious and measurable changes in our ecosystem. The great lakes are losing water. The north pole is melting and sea levels are rising. Water supplies in the southwest are in jeopardy. Whatever is causing these effects, they remain worrisome in the long term.
« on: February 08, 2008, 07:31:08 PM »
well, it was an actual post.
as for your highly scientific analysis of weather patterns, bravo. I guess we're all saved.
I didn't mean to suggest that the world was coming to an end. I'm not a scientist, but the scientists say that the country is heating up, and they say that the combination of losing snowpack with rapidly ballooning populations is already stretching water supplies in the southwest to their limits. I think that's something to consider.
« on: February 06, 2008, 09:57:36 PM »
It is my general understanding that trying to move from one state to another as a lawyer can be rather difficult. Some degrees travel better than others, and if your clients are all located in one state you might be starting over. To what extent does the possibility that certain regions of the country may be hard hit by any impending climate changes affect your view of getting your degree there and starting up a legal practice in those regions?
Perhaps you might prefer to avoid the southwest because of concerns that they are rapidly running out of water? Perhaps you might prefer to avoid the southeast because of concerns that they may see more violent storm activity and greater flooding?
Perhaps you don't remotely care?
Inquiring minds want to know.
« on: February 05, 2008, 07:16:21 PM »
Hey y'all. I think we can all agree that the incredible expectations and pressure put on us can be a real drag. It's obvious that we won't all get into harvard, but the prospect of having to admit to our lower scoring friends that their mushy mushy stories about living in garbage cans, coupled with their high GPAs in such lofty subjects as psychology and english, may have gotten them into better schools than us is pretty frightening.
I feel so alone.
« on: February 05, 2008, 03:35:51 PM »
I subscribe to a more holistic approach, but it may be a useful element to consider, given the fear that many people have of ending up in the bottom of their class. I only really looked at top tier schools because any reasonably personable and somewhat hard working person above the bottom 30 percent should be perfectly employable out of any of these places, though not necessarily their first choice job. If you look at it, a place like lewis & clark also has a very large spread, but they are going to have pull almost nowhere outside of oregon so the people outside of the top 1/3 are going to have issues. or so I would imagine.
« on: February 05, 2008, 03:25:13 PM »
an informal examination by myself yields the following schools as having an abnormally large difference.
UCLA, Northwestern, Berkeley, Texas, Illinois, UWashington, UWisconsin. looking only at relatively top tier schools.
schools that have a very small difference include
Chicago, Cornell, Vandy, USC, Notre Dame, GW, BU, BC, Emory
Other than texas, the schools with large differences do not seem to be notably larger than the schools with especially small differences, nor do we see any particular geographical bias. Northwestern is going to appear because of its emphasis on non-traditional/experienced applicants, but otherwise the top schools are all public and the bottom are all private.
Does anyone know if the bottom schools have a greater reputation for being cut throat than the top schools?
« on: February 05, 2008, 02:56:25 PM »
does anyone else find it interesting to look at schools gpa/lsat numbers and weigh them according to their spread? like if a school like usc has 25/75s that are very close, and a school like ucla has 25/75s that are fairly far apart, wouldn't a sane person want to go to ucla on the theory that there is going to be a stronger difference in student quality between those at the top and those at the bottom which would allow a talented person an easier time in rising to the top? i notice that some schools also post a median lsat, which is, interestingly, usually closer to their 75th percentile than their 25th percentile. perhaps an indicator that they realize that they are admitting a large (at least 25%) chunk of their students with the understanding that they will, on aggregate, end up toward the bottom of the class.
there seems to be a trend that state schools are more likely to have a larger difference in those numbers. perhaps because of institutional pressure to admit alot of in-state applicants who would be weak applicants otherwise.
And yes I know that the numbers are only a mediocre predictor of a given student's grades, but we're not talking about single students but rather about large numbers of them.