Wow...some pretty harsh criticism for offering a personal perpsective...
I don't think I was critical of anyone else, at least without qualifying the personal experience that led to my assumption, but yet blasted. Tough crowd. I guess it's an argument, not a discussion.
No, I am not on the payroll. But I am comfortable with the decision I made.
Yes, I think the Cooley ranking system is b.s...in fact, it's a joke to the students here.
Come here week 3 and you'll see who's getting cut...and you'll agree they don't belong in law school. Cooley profits off tuition, it's counter-intuitive to think the would intentionally boot people out. The argument is whether they should have been admitted in the first place, and that goes back to the principles of the founder.
As far a competition...law school shouldn't be a zero-sum game. Someone doesn't have to fail for everyone that succeeds. There are many here, myself included, that don't care about being the top of the class. I'm here to learn to be a lawyer, and I know where that will take me. To me, the competition is the bar exam and the job market.
As far as professors here, every professor here has been a practicing attorney. I think that adds a different perspective in the classroom, and I find it a positive aspect. What makes a better professor, one who is published or one who has several real-world victories? I honestly don't know the answer, or if there even is an answer.
Anyway, I enjoy the discussion for those who offer some substance...I guess I'll continue to take the chastising from the rest.
jag