Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - jessesamuel

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14
11
Denials / Any public interest rejects from UCLA?
« on: April 01, 2005, 04:01:02 PM »
Hi, everyone. Has anyone who applied to the public interest program at UCLA been rejected yet?

12
me too. but i don't think the deadline matters. i think many people will be accepted after april 1 and will probably have 2 weeks to send in an initial deposit.

13
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: rankings dont mean shi%
« on: March 31, 2005, 07:01:59 AM »
I agree with your formula Amanda, but it feeds on itself if you include rank as a factor. More selective = higher numbers = higher rank = employer interest = better job prospects = more selective = ...

I think as long as rank is a factor it will distort the evaluation of how good a school really is. Unless selectivity is removed from consideration. Maybe there could be two categories of rankings. One would be for quality of education one receives and the other for job prospects upon graduation. Or maybe job prospect data could be provided without factoring it into rank. I think if that kind of ranking system became popular, it would be a useful tool for employers who could be better assured of the quality of education of their new hires. Isn't that better than the current system, which is based on prestige and elitism? They just might hire more often from, say, Tulane than Georgetown (just a hypothetical example). Vermont and San Diego would get a deserved boost.   

If you take out selectivity, you're left with how good of an education you get, for what that's worth. There seems to be a market for brand-name JDs. Maybe under an alternate ranking system the market would favor a quality education.

Also, I assumed this given: selectivity is one of the more manipulable factors of rank. Schools play with the numbers in order to move up and it's not actually related in itself to the quality of education the school provides. That's why it's inherently flawed as a factor in rank.

14
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: Specialty Rankings...
« on: March 30, 2005, 03:34:57 PM »
According to USNWR for 2005, it's #18 in international law.

15
Acceptances / Re: Tulane's Recent Jump in Rankings
« on: March 30, 2005, 05:59:59 AM »
Here is some relevant info from a Tulane faculty member responding to a few of my questions:

The jump back up to our normal position (late 30s, early 40s -- the prior year was an aberration for us) is due almost entirely to reducing our class size and obtaining a class with a slightly higher GPA.  So, consider yourself part of the chosen!  The curve is a "B" (3.0) curve, in exact terms, in any class with 21 or more J.D. students, the professor shall award no less than 60% and no more than 65% grades of B and above, and no more than 75% grades of B- and above.  This means essentially you must be in the top 60-65% of the class.   

As far as why Tulane "places better" in the East than the West (precisely 28% NE, 5% Midwest, 30% La., 1% international; 12% West; 24% other SE), from my own personal experience counseling students, it is a matter of choice.  Many more students want to stay here or go to NY or DC than go to California.  Those students who I have known who wanted to get back to California did.  Actually, I think 12% out West is a fairly high number.  One issue with California is that most places in California do not give job offers without bar passage and so that deters students who want more security.  I can say with a fair degree of certainty that if you maintain a 3.0 or higher, you will be able to get back to California -- it is true that it may take a bit more work on your part than students who stay in Louisiana -- you may have to reach out a bit more, but the Career Office and professors here will support you in that effort.

16
Wait List / Re: You have GOT to be kidding me...Hastings
« on: March 30, 2005, 05:49:28 AM »
i'm in with numbers inferior to yours. here's my theory. hastings (and a couple of other great schools) is on a sociological mission to provide legal education to people who have had significant challenges on their route to law school.  in other words, urm or poor. i'm the latter. i think american is another one of these schools. i've said in other threads that i think they could rise significantly in the rankings if they were a bit less idealistic. their numbers certainly aren't going to go up if they accept, for example, me and reject people with numbers like yours, jules. good luck with the waitlist if hastings is where you really want to go. maybe i'll see you in class!

17
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: rankings dont mean shi%
« on: March 30, 2005, 05:36:49 AM »
i would like to see a ranking that's as well-funded and widely available as USNWR but that eliminates selectivity as a factor. alternately, i'd like to se usnwr provide more data and make it manipulable so each user can determine the relative importance of each factor. maybe i'll do that instead of practicing law when i finish school!

18
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Johnny Cochran has died!
« on: March 29, 2005, 06:05:58 PM »
Dang! I've been seeing his commercials on TV here in DC. Looked healthy enough....

19
Law School Rankings / Re: Winners & Losers of the 2006 Rankings
« on: March 29, 2005, 06:03:57 PM »
NYLS still 3rd tier.

20
Law School Rankings / Re: Winners & Losers of the 2006 Rankings
« on: March 28, 2005, 04:50:43 PM »
the overall score is available in the premium online edition for t3 and t4. but not for 2006 yet.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14