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 - Lgirl
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 25
« on: February 14, 2006, 08:17:25 AM »
It makes no difference. Some UK undergrad degrees are four or even five years long - it depends on the subject, but law schools in the US view them as equivalent to US degrees in my experience. Your degree might actually be advantageous from a diversity standpoint! I think you would have to include an addendum explaining the 2.2/2.1/First system though. And I think you're spot-on in what you say abuot A-levels. Where did you do your undergrad?
« on: February 02, 2006, 04:57:46 PM »
I've said this in another post, so I apologise for the repetition, but I did a summer placement at Cleary London this summer. I know a lot about how they recruit: almost uniquely from NYU, Columbia, Harvard and Yale. Theirs is a regional approach more than anything. I don't for a minute think that HY confered much of an advantage, because the majority come from C+ NYU. Maybe that's choice thing, buy don't forget that there aren't that many top grads to go round. On their US summer scheme there was only 1 person from Boalt and 1 from UVA.
Is this because they are lower ranked? I personally don't think so.
I met a girl on the scheme who's at Columbia and chose a job from Cleary over one at Cravath. From what she says she's not in the minority. We shouldn't ignore the element of choice in where people end up.
This girl was denied jobs at top San Francisco firms (she wanted to return to the West Coast). Now, those firms are filled with people from lower ranked schools... Boalt, Hastings etc, who perhaps don't fare as well in NYC.
I say it's a regional thing. I think the major difference between Harvard and Columbia is how well the degree travels, not how well it does within its own region. A Harbard grad, imo, would have got the SF + NYU jobs. Btw Harvard and Columbia for NYC? Not a big deal imo. I would take money from Columbia in a heartbeat if I wanted biglaw work in NYC.
« on: January 26, 2006, 05:52:24 PM »
I'm not sure I can live up to it though! I'm not competitive at all, but it wouldn't occur to me to cancel an interview for that reason, not until I had an offer in hand!
KT, are you seriously considering your other schools? And have you visited Stanford? What's it like? I know virtually nothing about it, except that it's so beautiful!
« on: January 26, 2006, 05:47:02 PM »
Wow! I'm sure there's the anomalous individual (lets hope it is anomalous!) everywhere! That's a hard line to take!
I found the people I met at Boalt exceptionally warm and friendly, but I don't know how this compares with other schools. People are very chilled there and confident with their choice to attend... they seem very balanced to me. And there seemed to be no competition between classmates, to the extent that myfriend felt bad for interviewing with firms she was halfhearted about in case she was taking away the opportunity for her classmates. That sort of community spirit just doesn't exist here, that much I can say!
« on: January 26, 2006, 04:57:44 PM »
It's a pleasure! I hope we are!
« on: January 26, 2006, 04:56:30 PM »
One more thing, which you probably all know anyway, is that we pre-law people are far moreconcerned with rankings than employers are. They often don't know the exact rankings of schools, and rightly care more about what they know about the performance *in practice* of graduates from various law schools, rather than the rankings which are partly concerned with faculty ration etc.
Permit me to say that I think we all a little too obsessed with marginal differences in ranking. We (myself included) should try to see beyond this I think.
I don't say this with reference to Boalt-Columbia necessarily, it is a general point.
« on: January 26, 2006, 04:51:34 PM »
Hi, just a little imput here. It might seem biased because I've chosen Boalt (deferred entry to 2006) but I don't think it is. I'm just giving you the info I have/know.
I visited Boalt this fall and spent a week there with a friend who is a 2L. I met a lot of students there, her friends and colleagues and sat in on some classes. I definitely didn't feel any vibe of 'we didn't get into the top 6 so that's why we're here'. On the contrary, several had targeted Boalt very specifically for certain programs, like IP, or for the lifestyle. My friend got into Northwestern and Michigan and chose Boalt over those. If you check back to the summer's posts, you'll find a few people who ended up choosing Boalt over Columbia and NYU. This was for location reasons (I think they were Californians).
I have to say that I don't believe that schools other than HYS confer a significant advantage over one another for firm jobs nationally. Columbia places excellently in New York, and Boalt places excellently in California.
I come from England and over the summer I did a summer placement at a huge US firm, Cleary Gottlieb (ranked 6th by Vault) in London (because you can do this as an undergrad here). Out of all their associates that year graduating from law schools, only 2 came from Boalt and maybe 40 from Columbia and NYU. This is because they are a New York firm without West Coast offices.
I met a girl on the scheme who was a 2L at Columbia, with above average grades. She had done a Masters at Berkeley before going to law school and desired to return to the Bay Area. She'd interviewed with big firms such as Orrick, MoFo, Pillsbury etc without success, whilst getting top jobs in New York.
I was at Boalt during hiring season. My friend, whose grades are very average at Boalt, got several offers from these sorts of firms.
This is anecdotal perhaps, but it is telling in my opinion. Columbia's prestige (assuming it is _that_ much more prestigious - not being in the States I'm not that sure) won't get you further in California, and Boalt won't be a particular asset in NYC.
In the end it probably depends on what you want for the next three years, and more where you want to be post-graduation.
Good luck either way - you've done amazingly well, and hopefully more good news is on its way.
« on: January 24, 2006, 04:17:16 PM »
you can be against AA and still mark your race without being inconsistent. A question asked, a question answered.
Besides, even if you are against something like this, if it could considerably change your life (by getting you into a better school than you might - and I emphasise might - otherwise get into) it's only natural to mark your race. By not doing so you are not changing the fact that the policy is used, only doing yourself a disservice. Yes, I'll be flamed for saying this - someone has to start the revolution, and my principle will be applied to all sorts of situations which seem, but aren't, analogous but I don't care. Anyone who is honest with him or herself knows they would mark their race if they knew it could give them a foot up. Fess up!
« on: January 24, 2006, 03:17:03 PM »
Sorry - replying to mgd.
Pericles - I couldn't agree more. I also love the play...
« on: January 24, 2006, 03:06:53 PM »
1. Lower scores do not mean they are less able to succeed. Maybe they couldn't afford prep courses. Maybe they are not good at standardised tests. Many people go on to do well despite scores that would indicate otherwise, according to your theory.
2. You state that URMs lack the numbers to succeed. Lets assume for a moment that these people do come bottom which, in my opinion, is a rather ridiculous assumption. But even if they do, is that not success anyway? The thing is, someone has to come at the bottom of every law school. If all law schools were filled with 3.8+ GPA and 170+ LSAT score students, because there is a curve, some of them would come at the bottom. That doesn't mean they are not clever or haven't succeeded or won't get good jobs or anything of the sort. SOMEONE has to be there, and if the school did only admit people with the sorts of grades I mentioned, would you still say that those students at the bottom had basically failed?
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 25