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 - Revenant
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 33
« on: April 24, 2004, 11:01:56 PM »
You can't draw the line. Everyone's situation and characteristics are different. I was going to say a 4th tier is still fine if you don't rack up 150k in debt, but then again, there are way worst things in life than having a law degree and 150k of debt. Not that I would want to accrue that much debt at a 4th tier though since I can already make 60k starting salary right now, but everyone has different standards. I definitely wouldn't draw the line at the crappiest law school in the US if it's only going to cost you like 50k or less for the three years. 50k for a legal education is a relative bargain. Not everyone cares about money anway -- heck, everyone knows BIGLAW jobs tend to be misery-inducing so those not interested in BIGLAW will probably eventually get to the job they want, if not right out of law school.
So, we have people going to all kinds of law schools. The people that were lucky enough to get into say, a top 20 school, will be fine and can look forward to lucrative careers. Heck, if you went to like a top 10 school, you don't really even need great grades, the name of your school will carry you through.
Now, everybody else gets the politically correct treatment. Oh, you can go to a school that's lower ranked, but you will be fine as long as you do well. Maybe this idea holds up for tier 1 and tier 2 schools, maybe. Seems like you go to a top 100 school, you will usually find some legal job.
But honestly, where do you draw the line? Even if you go to a 4th tier school, you'll be fine? I hear this, but people should stop being politically correct. I want to know how people think. You go to a 4th tier school, is it still worth it? Or heck, how about a non-ABA school. And don't tell me about that one uncle who went to some non-ABA school and has a lucrative career. I also know millionaires that flunked out of high school. We all know percentage wise, this is unlikely. And no BS about, well your law school experience is what you make out of it, blah blah. I mean is it really true that you go to any law school, you'll be okay? I mean is that really it?
Or is there someone who feels like saying, if you go to a school that's 4th tier, it's pretty much useless.
Heck I don't know. It seems like with the way lawyers are saturating the market, that despite my personal optimism about increasing employment opportunites for lawyers, going to a lower tiered school is still useless. Heck I've gotten into some decent 2nd tier schools, and that seems pretty useless to me now.
« on: April 24, 2004, 10:51:44 PM »
But outsourcing has been going on for decades. The REASON it is such a hot topic right now is because white collar jobs ARE being outsourced. That scares people, and makes people wonder whether the legal field could also be subject to outsourcing. I also don't agree with people not wanting to be represented by a non-American. Where do you exactly draw the line there? I am a minority, would you not want to be represented by me, though I consider myself an American? How would I be different from some dude in another country that speaks perfect English and has a solid grasp of American laws? Personally, I would want somebody to represent me that can win my case. Pure and simple, I don't care if it's a talking ape.
I'd probably draw the line at the fact that you actually live here in the US. If something goes wrong, accountability at the very least seems more available with an attorney in the States than someone overseas. =P
« on: April 24, 2004, 10:39:52 PM »
Please note all I said was "it also does not confirm anything lower than 45th percentile at an Ivy" and never said 142 = 45th percentile.
I just wish people would stop second-guessing each other if someone claims to be going to a particular school with a certain LSAT/GPA. It doesn't really matter if they're lying - let the liars have their fun. We're not adcoms and it just seems silly for us to say what can and can't get into a certain school, with or without spectacular recs or extracurrics. Obviously, it's not probable that an extremely competitive school would admit someone with deficient grades or scores, but at the same time, those who think top schools would not admit someone with extreme promise but unfortunately have either a low LSAT or low GPA just to keep their 25-75th brackets high are assuming that a lot of these low score cases are admitted. A really low GPA or LSAT would definitely be at the lowest percentile bracket and would not affect a school's ranking, if the school even cared about USNews to begin with. Thus, a good reason for rejecting someone with a 3.9/142 would simply be that they are nothing special compared to the rest of the applicant pool and not simply for appearances' sake. Without knowledge of the entire picture, as well as the adcom's criteria, we cannot accurately judge.
« on: April 24, 2004, 10:16:17 PM »
Thanks so much everyone! I checked it out at finaid too, and I guess it is like the cheapest loan you can get--so I must just be really poor for USC--someone actually said to me the other day "USC--University of Spoiled Children"
The subsidized Stafford is actually the cheapest at the moment (if the rates stay the same for the course of your attendance, of course). I think the unsubsidized Stafford is still cheaper than the Perkins, but the Perkins is a good fixed 5% for the entire duration of the loan, so it beats out private loans.
« on: April 24, 2004, 02:05:30 AM »
Haha, I like this ranking too.
« on: April 24, 2004, 01:54:32 AM »
I don't believe that Ivy_Bound is actually ivy league bound. Most Ivy League law schools already have high UGPA averages, so the LSAT needs to be high enough to bring up the schools' average for USNWR.
Most people say that one point on the LSAT equals 0.1 on the UGPA, and vice versa. If I were to use this philosophy, Ivy_Bound's would be equivalent to:
- an LSAT of 175 and UGPA 0.6
- an LSAT of 165 and UGPA of 1.6
- an LSAT of 155 and UGPA of 2.6
A person with those numbers (or Ivy_Bound's numbers) would have less than no chance of attending any top ten school.
Feel free to correct me if anyone knows someone who got into any top ten schools with those numbers.
Unfortunately, statistical analysis only gives a pretty good picture, but not the entire picture. Here's the data from the 2003 Barron's. Unfortunately, only one of these is an Ivy League, cuz the rest opted not to reveal such data. However, it's still good as food for thought.
Lowest LSAT Percentile Accepted
Berkeley: 22nd (public)
Texas: 16th (public)
UCLA: 47th (public)
UCDavis: 25th (public)
Evidence does not rule out the possibility that the Ivies could accept below median LSAT scores, though it also does not confirm anything lower than 45th percentile at an Ivy.
Amazingly, the most competitive schools are NOT Yale, Harvard, etc. but the following:
Ohklahoma: 64th (median also 64th -- wow! ^^)
North Carolina Central: 143
« on: April 24, 2004, 01:32:51 AM »
I think the tests are very different. The LSAT tests one's ability to work hard on preparation, along with certain logical abilities, while the SAT is really a test of knowledge. I never learned geometry in hs (I was out sick for my whole freshman year, and the tutor really didn't teach me a thing) and that really hurt my math score. . . I scored a 1350 on the SAT, but a 175 on the LSAT.
zpops, damn yo, trade you my SAT score for your LSAT score?
I think there's a minor corrolation in that people who do relatively well on one will do relatively well on the other. However, SAT tests math knowledge, which is not really necessary for law school (the logic aspect carries over, but the the finer details don't). I, for one, did extremely well on the math part of the SATs and only pretty good on the verbal. On the LSAT, I performed at a level somewhere in between my Math SAT and Verbal SAT.
« on: April 21, 2004, 02:49:30 PM »
Yeah, so I don't pay very good attention to details...ever. Can anyone enlighten me about a Perkins loan? Why did I get it at only one school?
Not all schools offer the Perkins loan. Some of these schools will substitute their own version for it. Even so, each school has only a finite amount of funds available for handing out as Perkins loans and they usually go to those deemed most needy. Perhaps your other schools simply had more poor ppl.
« on: April 21, 2004, 02:44:15 PM »
I've heard the other Rutgers in Camden is in a horribly ghetto location, but that the Newark one was okay.
That being said, I have heard good things about Chicago...I just hope Loyola would be good enough to put on my resume in case I decided to move elsewhere.
How about Cardozo-Yeshiva? Is it good to go there if you're NOT Jewish? =P
I'm not Jewish and am going to Cardozo. If anything, I rather like having to observe all the Jewish holidays.
But seriously though, Cardozo isn't as Jewish as its undergrad. They even boast ~9% Asian-American and that's more diverse or just as diverse as most other non-Jewish and non-Cali law schools.
« on: April 20, 2004, 03:52:24 PM »
For months now I've stressed and sweated about what law school I should go to. Is Michigan really better than UVa. Is Chicago really better than Penn? What does better mean? I'd almost convinced myself that making the wrong decision was going to ruin my future. Career prospects would be dashed, and I'd end up always regretting a faulty decision by choosing a school that was lower ranked over a higher one. And then, a couple of days ago I took a deep breath and thought it through. Many of the wealthiest, most successful lawyers I know went to lower first tier or higher second tier schools. And I finally relaxed. In the end, hard work and drive can make me successful regardless of which school I go to. So in the end, I followed my heart and submitted my deposit. Now it's time to start looking ahead and stop stressing. GL in the final decision making everybody. And remember to keep it all in perspective.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 33