Law School Discussion

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
51
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: UMass going anywhere?
« Last post by loki13 on July 14, 2016, 06:50:19 AM »
So how long until Umass-dartmouth becomes a tier three, tier two law school. UC Irving rose way faster. I'm planning to go to umass-dartmouth in the JD/mpp program, and I got a 17,000 dollar scholarship to the JD. But right now, even when it's parent is University of Massachusetts, they aren't even ranked. The usnews considers them less then tier four. Which I don't know why. They are by the way a public interest law school. They have higher bar pass, higher employment, higher lsat scores than a lot of the TTTT's. Someone explain.

First, you can't compare any school to UC Irving- it's sui generis. Hiring Chemerinsky, hiring the other faculty members that it did, subsidizing high LSAT students etc. It was a planned attempt to get to T50 that worked (and cost dearly).

UMass-D has a slightly different issue; look at the market. Massachusetts has nine law schools; of those nine, three of them are Harvard, BU, and BC (one of the top in the nation, and all three T25). It has three more respectable schools for its urban center (Northeastern, Suffolk, NESL).

So, no, I don't see it as being T2 (50-100) any time soon, at least not in today's market. It has no reputation, no real alum base, and it doesn't have particularly great admission numbers.
52
Choosing the Right Law School / UMass going anywhere?
« Last post by DefenestrateMan on July 14, 2016, 05:44:28 AM »
So how long until Umass-dartmouth becomes a tier three, tier two law school. UC Irving rose way faster. I'm planning to go to umass-dartmouth in the JD/mpp program, and I got a 17,000 dollar scholarship to the JD. But right now, even when it's parent is University of Massachusetts, they aren't even ranked. The usnews considers them less then tier four. Which I don't know why. They are by the way a public interest law school. They have higher bar pass, higher employment, higher lsat scores than a lot of the TTTT's. Someone explain.
53
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by Tommy Westphall on July 13, 2016, 02:09:08 PM »
did............did cyn straight up KILL himself!??!?!? (or am I hoping too large?)
54
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by loki13 on July 13, 2016, 11:33:07 AM »
Loki:

I agree that the vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, if grudgingly.

My question is about they view Sanders himself after his endorsement of Clinton. This is anecdotal, but so many of the Sanders supporters I know were as opposed to Clinton as they were to Trump. I think Cinnamon falls into that category.

So, when the guy who they supported so strongly endorses someone who they oppose so strongly, does that change their opinion of Sanders? Do they think he's a sellout, or do they say "Hey, it's politics and the most important thing is defeating Trump!" (Which is essentially Sanders' line).

I'm curious because it seems like there would have to be some cognitive dissonance involved in order for it to NOT change their opinion of Sanders, at least somewhat.

Well, I don't think you can easily categorize all Sanders voters, as I alluded to in my earlier post. How they feel about Sanders himself will likely depend on what type of Sanders voters they were to begin with.

There is the old-school, mostly white, left wing of the Democratic party. They either already get it, or will get it.
There are the young people for whom this is their first election. "Politics" and "compromise" is a dirty word, and the idea of losing the battle, but then fighting the war, is a new one. Again, though, I'm not overly worried about them.
Then there are those who were motivated primarily for hatred of Clinton and/or Obama (call them the Spiced Troll / West Virginia voters). To be honest, I don't think they'll come around, and I don't think it was really about Sanders at any point.

It's the second category that's the most interesting to me, and that's the area that Sanders himself will have to work on.
55
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by Maintain FL 350 on July 13, 2016, 10:42:56 AM »
Loki:

I agree that the vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, if grudgingly.

My question is about they view Sanders himself after his endorsement of Clinton. This is anecdotal, but so many of the Sanders supporters I know were as opposed to Clinton as they were to Trump. I think Cinnamon falls into that category.

So, when the guy who they supported so strongly endorses someone who they oppose so strongly, does that change their opinion of Sanders? Do they think he's a sellout, or do they say "Hey, it's politics and the most important thing is defeating Trump!" (Which is essentially Sanders' line).

I'm curious because it seems like there would have to be some cognitive dissonance involved in order for it to NOT change their opinion of Sanders, at least somewhat.
56
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by Tommy Westphall on July 12, 2016, 06:51:40 PM »
Cinnamon, I have a serious question. This isn't intended as criticism, I'm just genuinely curious.

Since Sanders has officially endorsed Clinton today, and since you are so strongly opposed to Clinton, do you think that:

1) Sanders is a sellout?

and

2) Will you still vote for Sanders given that he has endorsed someone so antithetical to your beliefs?

I'm curious because I wonder how many Sanders supporters must be seriously disappointed by sanders himself.
Don't listen to Loki...........feed the troll...............FEED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
57
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by loki13 on July 12, 2016, 10:03:42 AM »
Maintain-

Do you really want to ask Spiced Troll? As in, do you think his answers are representative of the overall Sanders vote?

In the more, ahem, tied-to-reality, living on things other than popcorn community, I would look to the following-

1. Past is prologue. Whenever there is an interesting fight within a party, you end up seeing those who declare, "I will never vote for the other person." (Remember the PUMAs - party unity my ... behind, who supported Clinton and not Obama?). But the majority eventually comes back to the fold. Heck, even *Trump* is getting a fair amount of GOP support, and he's ... well, not a typical GOP candidate. After all is said and done, support for the party (or dislike of the other party) counts for more than the intra-party differences.

2. The nature of Sanders' support. Yes, he did attract a lot of "super liberal" folks, and those people will be appeased by the changes made to the Democratic platform. But a fair amount of support in the primaries came from those who disliked Obama (yeah, I know) - see, for example, his victory in West Virginia. He attracted not just supporters, but those who were simply protesting - and Sanders would not have received their votes in the general, anyway (unless you think a New England socialist is going to win West Virginia is the general). This isn't to discount the fact that he identified a key Democratic constituency and motivated them, but it also speaks to the fact that this constituency is over-represented in the actual support he received.

Anyway, Sanders will campaign with and for Clinton and appear at the convention. You'll see the usual rates of people returning to the fold; cf. the rates for the Clinton/Obama race.
58
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by Maintain FL 350 on July 12, 2016, 09:47:12 AM »
Cinnamon, I have a serious question. This isn't intended as criticism, I'm just genuinely curious.

Since Sanders has officially endorsed Clinton today, and since you are so strongly opposed to Clinton, do you think that:

1) Sanders is a sellout?

and

2) Will you still vote for Sanders given that he has endorsed someone so antithetical to your beliefs?

I'm curious because I wonder how many Sanders supporters must be seriously disappointed by sanders himself.
59
A few things to think about-

First, don't be disappointed by a 160. A 160 is a good score. There are many, many people that would kill for a 160. Yes, if you hang out at certain boards (the "T14 or bust" boards) you'll see people talking smack- mostly people who haven't gotten into law school, and anonymous commenters that lie to make themselves feel better. But a 160 is perfectly fine.

Moving on- the LSAT is a test of aptitude for law school, at least theoretically. To a certain extent, you will not be able to improve. That said, the two main areas that you might see some improvement are in overall test taking (strategy, comfort, time management) and logic games. How much any individual can improve differs from individual to individual, and also depends on where they are starting from.

Long story short- given what you've relayed, I'd work on logic games. You should see some small improvement in your scores.
60
what company was your prep course with, and was it in person or online? Was it interactive?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10