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 - official2008

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17
12
Law School Rankings / Re: Most Important USNWR Measure
« on: May 15, 2005, 02:43:19 PM »
i'm probably naive in making this assertion--but aren't quality of facilities and student faculty ratio a fairly important measure?

i think USNEWS gives the above a small effect on the rankings.


i think student faculty ratio is important (as well as something that they don't measure directly... faculty quality). however, facilities aren't that important...to me at least; unless you're talking about resources, such as library volumes and subscriptions.

yeah, that's what I meant--sorry. maybe I'm just too psyched about the size of Iowa's law library--but, from a research standpoint, you have to imagine that the size of the school's law library can be a great resource.

Is one library really that much better than the next? Library size (at least in volumes) seems like an anachronistic measure with how much info is online and on WestLaw, etc.


maybe, but i don't see how more books could hurt anything?

13
Law School Rankings / Re: Most Important USNWR Measure
« on: May 15, 2005, 02:31:43 PM »
i'm probably naive in making this assertion--but aren't quality of facilities and student faculty ratio a fairly important measure?

i think USNEWS gives the above a small effect on the rankings.


i think student to faculty ratio is important (as well as something that they don't measure directly... faculty quality). however, facilities aren't that important...to me at least; unless you're talking about resources, such as library volumes and subscriptions.

14
Law School Rankings / Re: Most Important USNWR Measure
« on: May 15, 2005, 02:20:17 PM »
So, I'm looking at the USNWR rankings and I'm seeing that there are a ton of numbers that really don't matter. Are you really a better school if you reject a whole lot more people because you send out a ridiculous number of application fee waivers and lower the application fee for the rest to about half of what other schools do? (hmm...hmm...GMU?) I think there are a few numbers that really show what a school can do for you. I think these are among them:

1. Median salary range
2. Assesment by judges/lawyers

Am I off? What other numbers matter? What other numbers are simply garbage?

add bar passage rate & employment after graduation

edit: those are useful numbers

15
official...

1. The possibility of losing your job impacts renters equally, if not more profoundly. If you lose your job, how will you pay the rent? It probably is actually worse for a renter because they have no equity to fall back on, whereas even someone with a mortgage has already been paying off that mortgage (and hopefully paying extra month into the principal, depending on rates) meaning they can sell the house or even use that equity to take out a loan to get them through until they find a new job (if they don't simply have savings).

2. I agree about renting one room of a house. That rent won't show a profit when compared to the mortgage.

3. I think there is a broader point that has yet to be addressed. When you rent, you are building the wealth of someone else. Of course, when you buy, you are building the wealth of a bank/lender and maybe the previous homeowner. But the point is that you are also building up your own equity at the same time. With housing being such a large portion of living expenses (probably the largest single expenditure each month), doesn't it make sense to try to use some of that large expenditure to build equity for yourself?


good point about the job, but you get out of your contract. you see, if you lose your job under a mortgage, you're right you can take out a loan...but that's just more debt. debt takes years off lives; it's a constant stress. however, if you lose your job while renting, you can find a cheaper place, which works out better if you can't a as high-paying job as you had before.

mobility is a comidity that has been seriously undervalued in this discussion. we're talking about people who stay in the same house for 30+ years because they have to. i know some people like that, but i think most people would like the option to move around see different parts of the world if they could.

i hear so many people who after 30+ years say that they regret it.


i did neglet the equitly issue, and Anodduck made a good summary in his post. equity, sure, ussually won't be a total loss in a house that's sold...even those sold for a loss. but i think, again, that the benifits of lower costs associated with your housing can make up for that equity if you do the right things with it.

16
I couldn’t get back onto the site after my last post yesterday, so let me finish what I started…


Made: just as I thought, you couldn’t answer my question. I’m sure you don’t even believe that *&^%. You’re going to make a profit off my one rent…enough to pay the mortgage on the place, and make a profit. Be for real.


Black: we’re not talking about the same thing. First, you’re not always going to make a profit on your house (that’s a fantasy). furthermore, if you’re buying homes every three years, then you don’t really *own* that female dog do you? The bank has a pretty serious lien on the mofo (you’re just in debt, with an investment that’s in a market that you have NO control over, lol). Second, if you’re buying and selling houses every three years, then you have business or something similar to it. Most people, and the house-buying that I’m against is the house-buying where you have a 20-something year loan, that you’re committed to and responsible for. What if you lose your job?

You do have control when you’re renting; you can do pretty much the same things you can do in places that you own. More really, you have options; if you want a bigger place, more rooms, a view…move. I can dispute your whole apartment theory/testimony with a single sentence: you can rent houses as well.

As far as me putting money in some homeowner’s pocket, well, that’s just not true. I’m putting money in the bank account of some businessman/woman or company who has several investments/properties, which allows them to make a profit off volume. The average homeowner that rents a room or a spare house is doing so only to ease the costs associated with multiple mortgages. And, if that homeowner, actually *owns* that second house (meaning the *&^% is paid for), and then they were already wealthy, in which case I endorse buying of real estate.


Drowles: say something meaningful.


I’ll end with an analogy similar to Blk_Rein’s silly car comment.

Take a business for instance, only the wealthy business actually build or own their offices. They rent, some lease…the point is, the business, its owners, and directors don’t try to by the office. They get their money elsewhere. Being bogged down with lengthy contracts and stringent obligations is counterproductive.

Stop trying to find little angles to get at my argument; you miss the point that way. What I’m saying is that if you’re wealthy and can afford it, then there’s nothing wrong with investing in real estate…if it’s a business for you, and you can make a little money off it on the side (which most people can’t or won’t if they try) they good. BUT, for the masses, for most people buying one home – over 30 years – is definitely not worth it.   

17
The more I read BLSD the more I want to invest in Mercedes, BMW, whoever the fuuck makes Hummer and Sean John...It's amazing that people find their way to this board just to ask or defend the stupidest point of views in the world...OP if you don't think owning a home is a good idea and the best investment you can make, great... please tell me when you are coming back to the U.S. and where you are going to be staying...I'll make it a point to have a cool crib for you to Rent (er...I mean pay my mortgage)...

Here is my point All wealthy people own property, All, not some All if they don't own now they did to get wealthy...If you think you are wealthy and don't own your own home you're not wealthy.

 :D




who's going to pay the mortgage on the place you're renting to me?


if you can answer that one, then i'll concede...i'm wrong.  ::)

18
The more I read BLSD the more I want to invest in Mercedes, BMW, whoever the fuuck makes Hummer and Sean John...It's amazing that people find their way to this board just to ask or defend the stupidest point of views in the world...OP if you don't think owning a home is a good idea and the best investment you can make, great... please tell me when you are coming back to the U.S. and where you are going to be staying...I'll make it a point to have a cool crib for you to Rent (er...I mean pay my mortgage)...


Here is my point All wealthy people own property, All, not some All if they don't own now they did to get wealthy...If you think you are wealthy and don't own your own home you're not wealthy.


they were wealthy first.  ;)

19
I prefer my government name RBG.


Official: listen man, just as homes appreciate they can depreciate, you can lose money too, ESPECIALLY if you don't know what you're doing. so that equity you built...gone. bottom line, i mortgage is a burden! why take on the stress, why live in one place for so long? why pay the interest, the maintenance fees?

rent! there are better things, more reliable things to put your money into. again, how you live is way more important than where you live...nobody cares if you own or rent. an example-- a hypothetical if you will.

scenario one: everyone owns their house, great. but that's it. they pay (to be fair 25% of their income on it) however, they're stuck... in a deteriorating home...under a stressful loan...in that city...in that school district...with those neighbours...with that obligation...with the maintenance costs...for 30-something years...basically, between a rock and a hard place.


scenario two: people rent, from the white man even. they pay 30% of their income on rent. yet they're free from the homeowners burdens. they have options. their quality of life is a bit better... and for that i say they're wealthy(er).

so, it all comes down to two things:

1. opportunity costs; like i said before, you have to ask yourself are the troubles and heartache that come with homeownership or rather buying a home... that you can't afford to buy upfront worth the benefits of renting that you give up?

2. political capital that amasses from putting your money in better-suited, more fruitful places. your child and their children will benefit more from a black bank, or, God forbid, real black communal wealth than they would with a house or piece of real estate.



Black: you'd be surprised what percentages of a person's income they pay on their mortgages. i

i didn’t elect to become a lawyer for its prestige, i feel i'll have a bigger voice if i'm an esquire than i would otherwise
 


20
No. I don't feel like it. Also, I'm not smart enough to defend my view. I just like to reject topics without baacking it up with anything. :-\


official - what are you doing in the UK?

RBG: working...for some international law firms


HBCU: hell yeah i'm sincere, please explain it to me how i'm wrong. 






that's what i thought.


but i'll argue my self on this one...





counterpoint: but tim, home ownership is great, for the following four reasons. people can pass the wealth down from generation to generation. it's all about the equity, it's basically like your saving your money instead of throwing ot away on rent, and you can take a loan out based on it. why pay rent when you could be spending the same money to buy a home...that's yours. and lastly, the home may appreciate, in which case you make a profit. top that!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17