Law School Discussion

Well, I wasted a few minutes reading the first page of the thread again, as you suggested.  I did not find an intelligent, substantive reply to the portion of my post directed to you.  I did, however, find some rather pathetic sophistry:

"This is the type of post that I was trying to avoid with the disclaimer.  ..I merely wished to let people know from the beginning that the thread would be about Yale."

At best foolish; at worst insulting.  If you actually believe that starting a thread with "If Yale makes you feel inadequate, please look away" is likely to "avoid the type of post" with which I replied, or that by doing so you were "merely letting people know the thread would be about Yale," you are deluding yourself as well as reasoning very poorly.  If you don't believe it, which I hope for your sake is the case, you are arguing ineptly and insulting your audience by your estimation that they will find it compelling.

"This is more like you going to a Ferrari enthusiasts' meeting and telling them to stop talking about their cars out of consideration of the Kia drivers who might come in."

Ugh.  You dig yourself deeper.  "Kia drivers"!  Further, your reasoning is again fallacious: I didn't see a post that attempted to dissuade a conversation about Yale.  The impetus for the the initial rebuke, and mine, was your first line--a backhanded insult with an implicit ugliness--and those rebukes were soleley in response to your post.  Pretending otherwise is analogous to Bush saying "Don't denigrate the National Guard" when questioned about indications of impropriety in his record.

Refer to page 1 of 15.

Quote from: tencigars on April 27, 2005, 12:10:54 AM

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 31, 2005, 10:58:12 PM

Disclaimer: If hearing other people talk about Yale makes you feel inadequate , please look away.

-----------------

*Sigh*

More and more I am realizing that high GPA and LSAT scores do not correspond to qualities of admirable character or even interesting personality.  It seems the only common denominator among so-called overachievers is an ability to recognize the bottom line and work effectively toward it.  Intelligent grinders all, some, let's hope, with more to them.

And to Alcibiades let me say, you didn't just win a prize for first place.

As another poster said, you haven't achieved anything yet.  In my opinion, you won't have until/unless you contribute meaningfully to society.  Acceptance to a law school, any law school, is just an opportunity to develop a skill (not even a true education with inherent value).  What you do with that skill is what matters.

Take some advice from the son of one my favorite poets:

"Young man, the secret of my success is that at an early age I discovered that I was not God."
—Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

I spoke to them on Monday as well (phone call) and got the same information, they are not giving out any more merit $$ until they get responses from the first round of offerees.  If after the May 1 deadline some people decline scholarship money, they may consider it for others, but she said it was not certain, by which I assume they could decide to just sit on the money until next year?

I got an email titled "Scholarship Offer" from UCLA last Friday and was pretty stoked (I was hoping since I got substantial $$ from Emory and USD they would give me something) but it turned out to just be an offer for a guaranteed unit for 3 years in the UCLA-owned grad student apartments... which I still have to pay for.  So, not really a scholarship, but more of a rent subsidy.  I guess it's better than nothing, but it makes Emory's offer much more attractive since I could live at home and pay $0 rent!

I called today to see if I could get them to sweeten the pot.  I've been offered quite a bit already but got offered still more from UT and Vanderbilt.  It was a no go.  They told me basically the same thing--that they have actually awarded more money than they have in their coffers and are waiting for May 1 to see who doesn't take them up on their offers.

But don't discount the value of that guaranteed apartment.  Over 300 students have requested a unit so far and the law shool only has claim to 56.  No wonder the UCLA representative listed it in the same breath as $ when she called to tell me I'd been awarded the merit scholarship.

By the way, I'm going to UCLA unless Columbia pulls me from their waitlist.  In fact, despite my negotiation for more money, I would probably have chosen UCLA over my other acceptances with no assistance beyond loans.

I'm looking forward to going to law school at UCLA.  There aren't many schools that evoke similar enthusiasm.

Quote from: tencigars on April 24, 2005, 02:34:30 AM

How would you rank Columbia, U Penn, Cornell, and UCLA?
Scale of 0 to 100.  I'm trying to determine what the perceived difference between them is.

Who is prettier, Penelope Cruz, Salma Hayek, or Famke Janssen? That is about as useful a question as which of these schools is better than the other. You aren't comparing things which, in themselves, are different enough to yield useful results. If you were comparing Penelope Cruz to my mother, then you'd have consistency.

If the the women you named had each accepted your advances on the condition that you choose one and only one, and further, that you commit at least three years of your life to the relationship, I imagine you'd engage in comparison.  And since your primary motivation in partnering is not love but rather to further your modeling career, you would no doubt consider public evaluation of their appearance, though all three are beautiful.

Shallow bastard.

J.

Columbia ---> Penn ---> Cornell -> UCLA

distinguishing between Cornell and UCLA is particularly tricky, especially based on reputation ranks, because UCLA is a relatively young school, and hence, hasn't had the time to allow it's alumni to penetrate as thoroughly into the market and academy as older schools.  both schools are very strong within their immediate regions, and you can get to the opposite coasts and anywhere in between with either school.  however, since cornell's class is much smaller than UCLA's, comparable firms will likely dig a little deeper into cornell's class than UCLA's when hiring new associates.  still, UCLA is arguably the best school in its primary market (which is huge), while cornell is probably 5th or so in it's biggest market.

What numerical values would you give them, 0 to 100?

J.

Have end of April deadline for almost all of those schools-have already pretty much ruled out Davis and Hastings (in-state) and Indiana (with $).  Probably looking to practice in CA, although have interest in international law.  Still on waiting list at Penn and Virginia but don't think I'll get in at either.  Out at Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, and Yale. I know UMich is highest-rated school, but I think I'm more of an urban-type and have never lived outside of CA.  Is there enough prestige difference to justify going to any of the other out-of-states, none of which I've received any money from.  At this point, I'm leading towards sticking with UCLA but am still weighing the options...Any advice?

Depends on what you want to do.  If you want to teach at some point, UM is very respected in academia.  I don't know how UM and UCLA compare in Big Law in the specific area of CA.

I myself am about to commit to UCLA and will probably attend even if UPenn and Cornell accept me (waitlisted).  If Columbia calls (waitlisted), however, I will change my plans.