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 - A_guy
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 19
« on: December 01, 2004, 02:48:03 PM »
again this is ur opinion based on sitting in on 4 classes and not all at the same school. for all u know the class right after the one u sat in on at ND could have had the same off the wall opinions as the tier 4 had. it is clear u are bias and favor "top" schools which is fine. my problem is when u post ur opinions based on inaccurate and incomplete data and make make comments that a "mildly retarded orangutang could hypothesize." how about trying to be objective when people post real questions seeking advice?
« on: December 01, 2004, 02:37:39 PM »
if u didn't want to go there then why apply in the first place? true its free, but just b/c something is free doesn't mean u should do it.
« on: December 01, 2004, 02:18:20 PM »
The biggest differences lie in the quality of the students, it seems. At "top" schools, the students all seem much more serious about being there, smarter (and therefore nerdier, at the Tier 4 schools the girls were all hot and the guys arrogant frat-boy types where at Notre Dame and Illinois most of the people were acne-covered nerds, foreigners, and overzealous overachievers who eventually get very annoying). Another difference is that at the Tier 4 schools, there were typically only 4 or 5 people (out of 60 or 70) answering questions voluntarily, whereas at Illinois & ND many different members of the classes (same size) were giving opinions and being called upon.
As far as the Faculty, at the Tier 4 schools, they seemed to be less "in charge" of the class, and let the students express their (usually stupid) opinions. At Illinois & ND the professors came off so intellectually superior (though still friendly) that the people were careful about racing to voice some dumb opinion they have. Both Tiers' faculty seemed accessible and "knowledgable enough."
All in all, if the only full-rides you get are from Tier 4 (or even some Tier 3) schools, I would recommend going to a highly ranked in-state school (depending on what state you're in) or biting the bullet and paying out to go to a Tier 1 private or public that has reasonably low tuition ($23,000 versus $32,000). If you get a full ride from a Tier 1 or near Tier 1, as I did, I'd recommend putting it in your top 5 choices, visit, and consider it very seriously.
When it all comes down to it, there are really five factors to consider in what you want in a law school: 1) Geography: Is this a place I could live for a minimum for 3 years, and realistically 6 to 7 years? 2) Specialized Programs: Does this school offer a concentration that I'm attracted to, or does it cater to mostly, i.e., corporate law, when, i.e., I want to go into Public Service? 3) Cost: Can I afford this school's tuition, given the area of law I want to practice and the debt I have already taken on? How much does it cost to live in the area around the school (this can vary by as much as $10,000 per year from school to school) 4) Gut Reaction: When I visited, did it just "feel" right? --Consistently going with your gut feeling is a talent well valued when put into action, and finally, 5) Job Prospects: Does this school host on-campus interviews? Does the admissions office seem to have a lot of JD's from their own school working there, suggesting that these people couldn't find jobs and for USNEWS & WORLD REPORT sake they hired them to list a higher percentage of the most recent class as having jobs? There are some Tier 3 schools that do a better job finding their students jobs than some top 25 schools--the best thing to do is ask students or very recent graduates about this (go on martindale.com and look up recent graduates from the law school in question).
i have issues with this post simply b/c of the generalizations based on visiting 4 schools. i don't think people at tier 2, 3, 4 schools wanna be there any less than people at tier 1 schools. i have meet many people in all of these tiers and to be honest its the ones in the lower tiers that are more passionate about their schools and work the hardest. they don't have a name to fall back on so the have to be the best. i am not saying the tier 1 students aren't the best, i am just saying don't assume something about a group b/c they aren't in tier1 schools. u have lasy people at all levels as well as hardworking intelligent ones.
go back to ur post and it seems interesting that at the higher ranked schools u praise the many students giving opinions but at the lower ranked schools the opinions are stupid b/c so many people give them. can u explain why its a plus to give opinions at ND but a negative to give them at a tier 4? and what makes the tier 4 opinion dumb and the ND opinion worthy of being listed as a benefit?
as far as professors go, u only visted 4 schools and i am sure u did not sit it on every class. so generalizing on ur limited information is a big mistake. also maybe u learn better by having teacher lecture and felt uncomfortable in an evnironment that not only lectured but was condusive to the opinion expression of opinions on certain topic. learning styles and teaching styles differ from person to person. maybe what u saw as a lack of control was actually the professor encouraged people to express their opinions and then showing them the true meaning of a law. also, it also depends on the class u sat in on. seriously if it wa a legal ethics class then hummmm... i would think u would get a lot of opinions.
now to the question at hand: i would take the full-ride. in the end u will come out with a law degree which is th epoint of going to law school. true a "top" school will open doors, i bleieve the same doors can be opened with a degree from a lower teir school. u might just have to push a little harder. if u r willing to put in the time, effort, and hardwork, u will not be limited by the name on ur dipolma. i degree might get u in, but ur ability is the only thing that will keep u there. also, many "top" schools teach theory while lower schools teach u how to practice. but in the end it all depends on whats best for u. do whats right for u no matter what we say.
« on: December 01, 2004, 01:13:53 PM »
not that this is going to prove anything or matter, but if you were a. really good at your fine art (acting, playing an instrument) and b. passionate about your talent, it seems unlikely you would settle for a career in the law as it offers, at best, a tangential (ie you can't play your instrument or act in productions full-time) connection to these pursuits.
i applaud you for "UR" last paragraph, someone has finally discovered the obvious limitations of message board debates.
although i understand what u r saying, i don't see it as a matter of not being good or not being passionate. a lot of dancers ( i can only speak of this paticular art) were great dancers and go to law school after they end their career. dancers enter the field knowing their career will be short and many make plans to move into teaching, choreography, arts administration, business, or law with the a purpose of continuing their work within the arts community. they are not settling but see thmeselves moving to the next level in their career.
« on: December 01, 2004, 12:50:40 PM »
here we go again...
1. AA was not designed to allow unqualified applicants into schools and jobs over qualified ones. It was designed to keep qualified minorities from being excluded for being a non-white male.
2. IF AA has been distorted it has been distored by the people enforcing it.
3. It is not reverse discrimination. Non-minorities are not being systematically excluded from admssions and jobs. If there was discrimination we would see a decrease in non-minority representation in schools and the workforce while seeing a significant increase in minorities.
4. People on this board and in general assume, incorrectly, that if i minority applicant gets in over a non-minority applicant he/she is benefinting from AA and is less qualified than the non-minority. People speaking out against AA focus will not ackowledge the fact that it was not their intellectual abilitities that kept minorities on the outskirts of the american dream, it was ystem wide discrimination for years.
5. No matter what u think law schools do look at other things besides numbers (NU comes to mind).
6. Minorities aren't taking "YOUR" seats b/c a seat at ur first choice or any law school is not gauranteed.
7. Minorities are pulling in numbers equal to or higher than urs.
8. Basing AA on socio-economic status alone will not work. In a system prone to discrimination what would happen is a situation that would lead once again to a situation where minorities will be excluded because of race. If u could satisfy AA by excepting only poor non-minorities, based on history, we will see a decrease in the representation of minorities on college campuses and in the workforce. there needs to be a way to use socio-economic status and URM status together without sacrificing one or the other.
9. LET THE ATTACKS BEGIN!!!
« on: December 01, 2004, 12:20:23 PM »
i recall many of my apps had a check for multi-ethnicity then provided a line to describe. its cool u identify with both b/c i know some people that decided based on the situation. when its an advantage to be on over the other they identify with that one more. u could check two plus the other then ewrite in what u r. i don't think it says to just pick one.
« on: December 01, 2004, 12:07:46 PM »
Yeah these fine arts majors (ie Theatre/Music) mentioned are "passionate, good at, and enjoy" their studies, just not enough to fashion a full career out of them instead of doing a 180 into law school.
i complete disagree with this. my passion for the arts is the reason i am going to law school. also, many artists who have gone to law school want to work specifically in the arts community. their advantage comes from being an artists which provides first hand understanding of the balancing act many artists face when dealing with creating new works and the endless legal and management issues that arise. finally, i know a few dancers that had a passion for both dance and the study of law but decided to pursue a dance career b/c in all honesty u can only be a dancer for a short time. these people, after ending their dance career were able to the pursue their second passion and in many cases were able to combine the two.
ur first mistake is basing ur statement about artists on the postin gof a few people on this board who are not an accurate representation of all the fine arts majors out there. ur second is basing ur statement on limited information b/c u don't know what is causing these fine arts majors to pursue something total different. u never know, there could be a logical connection that u r not making.
« on: December 01, 2004, 11:56:30 AM »
i tried not to, but i feel the need to post something here.
fine arts degrees are not easy. people in other majors tend to believe that artists spend their entire day singing, dancing, painting, or whatever. artist pursuing degrees not only have to be good at their craft, the also have to have a good understanding of theory, management, science. i know one dance major that did some really cool choreography that required an understanding of engineering.
instead of bashing a degree b/c its "easy" how about we ackowledge the accomplishment of getting any type of degree. remember not many people have the opportunity to even go to college, let alone law school.
i say be proud of ur degree. write about it b/c u were/are passionate about ur major/art and not b/c u think ur degree is less than any other or odd. besides ur degree will stand out among that thousands of pre-law, poli sci, criminal justice, english, and philosophy majors.
btw, with all the poli sci majors around here i would think this would be the last place people would bash degrees. i remember hearing how poli sci was a cop out major and it was just like pre-law and a waste of time.
« on: December 01, 2004, 01:19:31 AM »
i say go and visit for urself, sit in on a class, and grab a student in the halls and ask questions. i don't know about academics and even though a poster sat in on a couple of classes, i really don't think u can make an accurate judgement. i am sure u have all been in classes that weren't as hard as others.
also, a lot depends on what u want to do after law school. firm, public interest, whatever. it doesn't make much sense to go into $100,000 worth of debt if u want to work in public interest.
basically u have to do whats best for u. as i said on other posts take the information and opinions posted on this bored with a grain of salt. do what u need to do and what is in ur best interest. go visit the school with an open mind and don't let ur judgement be clouded by what other think.
« on: December 01, 2004, 12:58:34 AM »
guys and girls, u need to take this site with a grain of salt. don't let it get u down. if all these people are getting into these schools thats great but how do u really know they are. anyone can post an "i got accepted to (insert T1 school here)" post. none of that really matters. u should concentrate on ur tests and apps. use this site as an information tool by sifting through all the egos, self praise, and sometime pure BS. if u really want to study law and have the passion for it, then not getting into a tier 1 school will not stop you. being a good lawyer is not only about what school u graduated from. it is about how hard u work and ur desire to be successful. sure that tier 1 school will open doors, but there is nothing that says u can't open doors if u go to a lower ranked school. also, the lower tier schools have amazing alumni networks. former students who have experienced the elitism based on name know how hard it is and are more than willing to help people from thier alma mater.
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 19