Contrasting Temple, Drexel and Villanova

[uh huh.]

As to the poster in reply 7, your curiosity is itself indeed curious and adds nothing of substance to the dialogue in this thread. 

Why? I'm simply curious why your son isn't doing the legwork in investigating the benefits and drawbacks to the schools in which he (or you?) will be investing significant time and money. Will you be helping him with his legal research assignments, as well?

[Templedude7]

Temple. I go to temple. Professor Ohlbaum wrote the PA rules of evidence. We have great trial attorneys. There is a reason our trial ad section is ranked up there. In fact, I'm in a lecture right now

[DCLabor25]

The thing you should be most concerned about with these two schools is the cost -- period.  Your career options will be the same at either school (Temple or Villanova) -- you should not over-pay for either.  For what it's worth, I got into both schools last cycle and found Temple more willing to give scholarships than Villanova, but that was just my experience.

I would steer clear of Drexel.  I am sure it will be a great school in due-time, but there is no reason to be the test case when better options exist.  I am a big fan of people really look at the cost of law school, but I also think there is a mendoza line in law schools and that's at about the second tier, with some schools in the third tier being exceptions.  There is just no reason to go to Drexel.

[MichaelNKat]

uh huh, your post 10 again well reflects that you have nothing of substance to contribute to the dialogue in this thread and that my take on your post 7, that you were motivated by your own silly agenda wholly irrelevant to the subject of this thread, was well founded. Your post 10 also demonstrates a certain lack of analytical thinking and a willingness to leap to unsubstantiated conclusions, neither of which will serve you particularly well if in fact you seek a career as an attorney. First of all, you are assuming that my son is not engaging in his own independent due diligence; no competent attorney makes assumptions without knowing the facts. (In this regard, if you read my original post with any real attention to its content, you would have noted that my son's own investigation served as the foundation for my inquiries.) Moreover, if in fact parents are contributing to the financial cost of a graduate school education, then the parents are parties in interest and have standing, if not their own separate and independent fiduciary responsibility, to make their own inquiries. (Perhaps you have encountered the terms "party in interest", "standing" and "fiduciary responsibility" in some of your classes?) In this regard, your post 10 was rather ineptly constructed. While you no doubt sought to snidely denigrate my involvement in my son's law school selection process, you inadvertently suggested a legitimate justification for any such involvement. Good lawyers know better than to pose questions that suggest answers that undermine the purpose and intent of the question.

dashrashi, you thought my response to uh huh's reply #7 was rude? Actually, it was reply #7 that was rude and presumptuous. It not only diverted the thread which I started onto a different subject matter but was an attempt to be obliquely critical of the very existence of my inquiry. And if you think it was a "valid question" for this thread, then you appear to have difficulty identifying issues. It was irrelevant to the issues posed in the original question and on this basis alone was "inappropriate" (your word, not mine). If you think the subject of parental involvement is a subject worthy of discussion, start a thread on it. It is disingenuous, however, to attempt to justify the pollution of a thread that poses legitimate inquiries, particularly where the purpose and intent of the pollution is not to engage in constructive discourse.         

[M_Cool]

Have you ever been on a forum before?

[MichaelNKat]

To the posters in replies 11 and 12, thank you for your additional thoughts and comments.

Templedude7, I noticed from the time of your post that it appears the class you were in was an evening class. Are you an Evening Division student at Temple? If so (or if you otherwise know), I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on how the Evening Division contrasts with the day Division. In this regard, my son currently clerks for a criminal defense firm 2-3 days per week and would like to continue to do so if he attends Temple's Evening Division. It is his understanding that the Evening Division is structured for students who work during the day and that while the time demands may be tough, it is not unrealistic to do so. Any thoughts on this?

[MichaelNKat]

M_Cool - Yep, and just because certain behaviors are frequent on forums doesn't mean they should be accepted. Anonymity is no excuse for a lack of good manners and sometimes when confronted with such, a certain response is warranted. 

[UnbiasedObserver]

To those who posted replies 1 through 6, thank you for taking the time to respond. You have provided helpful perspectives and information.

As to the poster in reply 7, your curiosity is itself indeed curious and adds nothing of substance to the dialogue in this thread. 

You really don't need to be rude about it. It's a valid question. You can choose not to answer it, but it's certainly not inappropriate to wonder about it.

That said: temple. All the way.

C'mon, dashrashi, let's be real here. Uh huh most likely posted his remark to be rude. 

[dashrashi]

I don't think he did. I think he posted it because he wanted to point out to this helicopter parent that it should really be his son doing this research. Even if said helicopter parent already knows that, he (I'm going to go out on a limb here with that one) apparently needs to be reminded.

Helicopter parent: threads divert, A. As another matter, though you apparently aren't willing to see it, there was more than one issue raised in your OP. One of those issues, implicitly, is whether/how much research a parent should do for a prospective law student, setting aside the prospective law students own research that s/he may or may not be doing. That's what uh huh was trying to raise, and which he did, successfully and validly. Your defensive and frankly crazypants response shows that you're the one who's handling this inappropriately. So no, I don't have trouble identifying issues. But thanks for playing.

Seriously, I bet your son cannot wait to get away from you. "party in interest"? "independent fiduciary responsibility"? Is this how you're going to be about his whole law school career? Helicoptering and butting in? Whoo. You are a handful. Tell him I said he should pay for it himself, just to make sure you don't get a say.

[uh huh.]

I don't think he did. I think he posted it because he wanted to point out to this helicopter parent that it should really be his son doing this research. Even if said helicopter parent already knows that, he (I'm going to go out on a limb here with that one) apparently needs to be reminded.

Helicopter parent: threads divert, A. As another matter, though you apparently aren't willing to see it, there was more than one issue raised in your OP. One of those issues, implicitly, is whether/how much research a parent should do for a prospective law student, setting aside the prospective law students own research that s/he may or may not be doing. That's what uh huh was trying to raise, and which he did, successfully and validly. Your defensive and frankly crazypants response shows that you're the one who's handling this inappropriately. So no, I don't have trouble identifying issues. But thanks for playing.

Seriously, I bet your son cannot wait to get away from you. "party in interest"? "independent fiduciary responsibility"? Is this how you're going to be about his whole law school career? Helicoptering and butting in? Whoo. You are a handful. Tell him I said he should pay for it himself, just to make sure you don't get a say.

Dingdingding!!! You got it, kiddo. MichaelNKat, if you think I was rude, you and your boy will be very disappointed in the legal profession. You ain't seen nothin' yet.