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.

Topics - Julee Fern

Pages: 1 [2]
11
Studying for the LSAT / Does "Diagnostic"
« on: August 13, 2005, 08:14:08 PM »

Mean you stop believing in god after?

12
Does not mean this war on terror.

Only mean al qaeda confused.

Any one say different trying hood wink.

13
News Discussion / Democrats Hysterical over Rove Comments
« on: June 24, 2005, 12:53:19 PM »
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050623100109990002



Basically, Rove said that conservatives favored a much more aggressive response than liberals after 9/11. Given that I personally know several liberals that criticized the invasion of Afghanistan, and claimed that "there was a peaceful alternative" to any military response, I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably dispute this.


However, Dems have gone into hysterics over the comment, demanding an apology, as well as the firing of Rove.


First off, the comment was about liberals, not Democrats. If the shoe doesn't fit, they don't have to wear it. (There are certainly some Democrats who aren't that liberal, and who understand the need for an agressive response.) Their defensiveness in this context, if anything, only seems to imply that the criticism is perhaps hitting too close to home.


Secondly, it is especially ironic that the Democratic anger and denial comes at a time when many Democrats are pressing the administration to abandon the democratically elected government of Iraq to the foreign terrorists that are opposing their reconstruction.


While we're on the subject, isn't it about time Senator Kennedy resigned? Aside from killing a young girl with his alcoholic negligence, he's been on the wrong side of pretty much every issue for three decades.

14
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Q: Okay with Rankings in Theory?
« on: June 24, 2005, 04:09:57 AM »
I've read a lot of criticism of rankings and how they relate to hiring on here, and I was wondering something. 

First off, I think we all recognize that there are an enormous amount of law school applicants and law school graduates every year.  There presumably needs to be some way to evaluate and screen these people, particularly by employers, who probably can't realy afford to interview every applicant, or do OCI at every single campus. 

Presumably, most people here are okay with the use of GPA / class rank as one such screening tool.  Strong academic performance in law school probably indicates that someone is bright and hardworking, and has the potential to be a strong attorney.  Class rank, of course, is simply one form of ranking, so most people here are presumably not opposed to the idea of ranking per-se. 

However, as noted, firms also probably need to have a sense of the respective quality and competitiveness of each law school, so they know how to evaluate the class rank at each school, and so they know where to focus their efforts.  Given that some schools are in fact more competitive in terms of student body, it probably wouldn't be fair or rational to treat everyone with a 3.0 law school gpa the same.  Moreover, it would probably be logistically impossible for most firms to interview at all schools the way they interview at top-tier schools.  So some sort of ranking of law schools would seem to make sense. 

My hypothesis:  Most people here aren't so bothered by the idea of ranking law schools, any more than they are bothered by the idea of ranking students by class-rank.  Both, of course, are systems which (imperfectly) attmept to evaluate the academic performance and professional potential of students. 

Rather, I think what they are bothered by is the WAY that law schools select their student body.  If law schools spent more time carefully examining each applicant to determine potential, focusing more on difficulty of major, grade trends, economic background, accomplishments, etc., and gave less weight to LSAT, I think more people would support the ranking system as a legitimate meritocracy, even if it meant that T-14 and Tier one grades would still have employment advantages. 

I'm curious about other people's opinions on this.  Do people feel that all law schools should be treated identically for hiring purposes, or do they feel that we simply need reform to create a more fair and meaningful heirarchy? 

15
Where should I go next fall? / school rankings mean everything
« on: June 23, 2005, 07:26:26 PM »
And because of this, I'm choosing NU over Boalt for San Francisco, Minnesota over Fordham for NYC, and Iowa over BC for Boston. 

Who's with me?

16
Where should I go next fall? / Rankings and tears
« on: June 23, 2005, 07:23:27 PM »
Why do people cry so much about the rankings?

17
Where should I go next fall? / Ave Maria Accreditated
« on: June 23, 2005, 02:16:50 PM »
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,36303.0.html

I predict Tier 2 within 5 years. 

It already has high student numbers and passage rates.

Pages: 1 [2]