« Last post by Trinitite on Yesterday at 10:34:22 PM »
Go to medical school, those people get to play with knifes at work
If I tried that *&^% I'd get shot in the face.........IN THE FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yea my experience is more similar to Maintain's.You hearing all of this low ranked law school grads who were on the bottom of their class??
Of course having great grades is better, I was in the top of my class, but I still got rejected from plenty of jobs and despite getting the Witkin Award in Con Law 1 - Con Law II - Crim Pro 1 & Crim Pro 2. Not every DA, Public Defender and City Attorney Office was begging me to work for them.
For the most part on interviews employers ask do you have any experience doing X, because they don't want to spend time teaching it. If you know how to do a Pitchess Motion in California they don't have to explain it to you and you could have straight C's for all they care.
In BigLaw and certain jobs grades do matter, but those jobs are few and far between to begin with. Furthermore, of course there are small-mid size firms that care about grades, but there are small mid-size firms that might like that you like Basketball, or football or god knows what.
Every employer is not identical and has entirely different philosophies, culture, etc,. There are firms out there that would prefer to have a Tier 4 middle of the pack grad than the Harvard Valedictorian, because the Valedictorian Harvard working there wouldn't make any sense and you could constantly think they were going to leave.
I would love to have Lebron James on my lawyer league team, but if he quit the Cavs to play for me I would be a little suspicious about how serious he was to sticking with us long-term.
Furthermore, as to clients and grades/schools they don't particularly care. I go to a doctor, dentist, optometrist, CPA, etc and I honestly don't know what schools they attended or what grades they got, and I really don't care.
I don't have time to research it all and for the most part convenience in location, price, professionalism is far more important to me than whether they went to Harvard or Devry. Most clients are in the same boat and looking for representation in their situation with an attorney they like, is reasonably priced, and available.
Harvard Valedictorians can only do so much work in a day and are not likely to take the case of any jackass.
So at the end of the day, it is better to get good grades nobody argues that. It is better to be 7'1 when your playing basketball, better to have six pack abs when pursuing your modeling career, etc, but not everyone out there is a Shaq Sized dominant NBA player that can related to everyone that also attended Harvard and graduated with an M.D., J.D., MBA, CPA, with years of experience at the top firms and is reasonably priced and available to any joe that needs help.
Hi,Where you trying to work in while going to law school? Most of the lower law schools have most of their student do this.
I think it might be best to provide some background info before asking for advice. I took the lsat twice in 2010, in February and December. First score was a 143 and the second was a 146. Terrible scores, I know. I was accepted into a non-ranked law school, experienced financial hardship while I attended, got bad grades and was academically dismissed after the third semester. I now have over $120,000+ in additional student debt. I will have to start over if I am accepted into another law school, so basically the time spent at that non-ranked law school was for nothing.
When I first started studying for the lsat in 2009, I approached it with an "undergrad mentality". Meaning that I thought I could buy lsat prep books, memorize info in those books and do well on the lsat (stupid, I know now). I did not take a timed exam for the February or December exam. I answered about half of the questions on both exams.
I decided to study for the lsat in late February 2013 (after the dismissal) with a different approach because my first approach did not work. I drilled question types for most of 2013. I started taking timed exams in 2014. I could not answer every question under timed conditions so I decided to start with a base number. In logical reasoning, for example, I could only answer 12 questions in 35 minutes. So I set a goal of 12 questions within 35 minutes. Then would increase to 13 questions the next month, 14 in the following month, etc. I set this goal for each section. I am now finishing 95% of the questions under timed conditions which I am fine with. The only questions I do not answer are the 5/6 questions in one reading comprehension passage.
I want to score a 165 or higher on the lsat. Right now I am scoring in the low 150s. I have taken preptests 29-40, 42, 44, 47, 50-68 timed. So the only exams remaining are 69-75. My plan was to take the February 2016 lsat but I do not think I will be scoring anywhere near a 165 in 2 months. There are a few reasons why I want to score a 165. First, it is doable. My blind review scores range from the mid 160s to high 160s. I even have a few low 170 scores. Second, the thought of acquiring more debt for a law degree is scary. So I want to get a full scholarship. A 165 lsat score along with my undergrad GPA of a 3.5 can do that. Third, having an academic dismissal on record negatively impacts my appeal as a law school applicant. So I want to do as much as I can (i.e., score a 165 on the lsat) to become a more appealing applicant and also to show that I have the ability to succeed in law school.
So what would you do in my situation? I hate the idea of postponing but it appears that might be the best thing to do. One last thing to note, I work 40+ hours/week and commuted to work for almost a year in 2013 which is why my lsat progress has been slow.
Sorry for the long post.
Thank you for your time,
Precisely to you blatant hypocrisy is nothing, which is fine it is pretty commonplace in politics. Conversely to me a Politician under investigation is nothing new either. Reagan example authorized drug deals to get weapons there was an investigation into that, but nothing happened and I frankly think that is worse than what Hilary did, but i still don't think it is that big of an issue.
When your responsible for mass amounts of power you are inevitably going to do something questionable and your political opponents will do whatever they can to publicize and criticize you for it. To me that is commonplace and it certainly does not help Hilary's cause.
Because was the scared of Cheney Hilary is an easy target, she doesn't shoot people in the face.
It's clear you really believe what Hilary has done is unforgivable and the worst thing that a any of the potential presidential candidates has done. More power to you, to me it is certainly not beneficial to her, but one of the candidates may very well have rigged the 2000 election to help his brother become president, another fled prosecution in his own country, but does not think others should be allowed to. Ben Carson has lied about all kinds of things in his past, the list goes on and on.
At the end of the day no Presidential Candidate or person is perfect we all have flaws and make mistakes, but to you the investigation into Hilary is a huge deal. To me personally hypocrisy is the most annoying thing, but that might mean little to you. That is your choice and keep preaching man, but I don't think in reality this whole situation will have much impact. It is fodder to use in the election and there will be plenty of other issues raised about all the candidates as we move forward.