Law School 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.

Messages - Maintain FL 350

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 103
Decided that it might be important to review the rule with definitions:

Can be met by either:

(1) holds a J.D. degree, from an UNapproved law school that is accredited in the state where it is located.
(2) holds the equivalent of a JD degree from a law school that is accredited in the state where it is located AND that requires a course of study that is substantially equivalent in duration and substance to the legal education provided by an approved law school


“Accredited” means that a law school is recognized as being
qualified by the competent accrediting agency of a state or foreign jurisdiction, by a political subdivision of a state or foreign jurisdiction, or by another authorized body of a state or foreign jurisdiction.

“Approved law school” means a law school approved by the American Bar Association.

Don't read more into this than is actually present.

1) is referring to non-ABA approved law schools which are accredited by the state bar.

2) is referring to non-JD law degrees (LL.Ms, I suppose) which are accredited in the state in which the law school is located.

In either case, I see no provision whatsoever for an unaccredited law school. The TX rules, as far as I can tell, explicitly require at least state bar accreditation.

A couple of points:

1) Admission under either of these sections requires that the applicant first be admitted to practice in the state in which the school is accredited. Thus, you would first have to pass the CA bar, then get admitted to CA, THEN apply to Texas.

2) The most important thing to note (I think) is this: Section 2 refers to "a law school that is accredited in the state where it is located..."

California, as you may know, is one of a handful of states that allows ABA accredited, our own CA state bar accredited, and non-accredited law schools. I assume that by "accredited" they mean at least state bar accreditation.

Taft is not accredited by the CA state bar, in fact no online or correspondence law schools are accredited by the CA state bar.

Taft and other such schools do have accreditation by non-legal entities, but that may or may not be relevant. I would contact the TX bar and ask for clarification on exactly what/which accrediting body needs to approve the school in order to meet the TX requirements. 

Typically, when talking about law school accreditation, the only accreditation that matters is state bar or ABA.

Online Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« on: February 14, 2017, 10:46:34 AM »

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that correspondence/online legal education is always a bad idea, I think we are simply trying to point out that for the vast majority of students a non-ABA degree will present risks and limitations that are very difficult to overcome.

As long as the prospective is fully aware of the obstacles, then more power to them. But the key is to be open and realistic in your assessments, rather than seeing what you want to see. 

Law School Admissions / Re: URM African American Male
« on: January 31, 2017, 10:59:31 AM »
It varies, but it's significant. The problem you have, though, is that 140 LSAT.

Here's what I mean:

An AA male with a 155 would get a big boost, and would be able to compete for admission at schools that usually snub 155's. An AA male with a 165 would have a legitimate shot at Harvard, no joke.

140, however, is so low that even if you get boost equivalent to say, ten points, you're still only at 150. Mind you, the URM doesn't work exactly this way, but I'm offering the scenario for comparative purposes.

So, with a 3.1/140 I think you are still looking at Tier 3/Tier 4 schools. 

Law School Admissions / Re: URM African American Male
« on: January 31, 2017, 09:16:47 AM »
You might be able to get into a Tier 3 school, Tier 2 seems unlikely (though not impossible). Of course, there is significant variation even among schools in the same tier. You need to look at the admissions criteria for the specific school(s) you are considering. 

URM status will definitely give you a boost at most law schools. You mentioned the legalities of affirmative action. Here in California, the public university cannot admit students based solely on race, but they can still consider diversity as a factor and allow diversity statements. I believe the vast majority of law schools will at least allow a diversity statement as part of your application package, even if they don't follow the traditional affirmative action model.

Here are a couple of additional points I think you need to consider:

Retaking the LSAT

140 is a fairly low score. Did you prepare? Take a prep course? Devote serious time to studying? If the answer is no, then I'd seriously consider retaking.

If the answer is yes, then you need to consider whether law school is the right choice. Scoring 140 does not mean that you can't get through law school and become a lawyer, but it is an indicator of aptitude. Law school is far more demanding than undergrad, and a 3.1/140 indicates that you need to really consider if this is the right path.


You need to think about where you want to live. When you're considering the schools that might accept you with a 3.1/140, you're talking about schools with a local reputation/local appeal. These are schools that are going to present you with local job opportunities (if any). I'd worry less about what tier the school is in and more about where you want to live and work.

In other words, if you get admitted to Arizona Summit or Whittier don't plan on moving to New York City.   

It's OK to admit you were wrong, French Fries.

Concentration and clinics (which usually comprise no more than three or four individual classes) are not majors. We know that, you know that, even 0Ls know that. And yet that's the word you used, "major", and that gives me mirth, good sir.

Here's what you said, French Fries:

Not true, MANY have majors as options, and without question concentrations on the rest, and different quality of clinics for options (if any at all in those specific areas)

You still haven't given a single example of a law school that offers "majors as options", and you never will. So absurd.


Perfect troll logic.

Claim: law schools totally have majors.

Obvious reality: no, they don't.

Troll response: well, uh, where's the links to the law schools showing they aren't offering what they aren't offering!

In other news, law schools don't offer concentrations in watermelon law. Kinda hard to post that link, because ... wait for it ... it doesn't exist. Like a law school major.


If some dope told me that he majored in crim law, or con law, or whatever, I would literally toss his resume in the trash and tell him to take a hike.

So, French Fries/Tree whatever your name is, where is YOUR link showing a law school that offers majors?

Why don't you offer one single link to a law school talking about what "majors" they offer? Julie, is this you again?

Law School Admissions / Re: Will i get in
« on: January 19, 2017, 09:05:27 AM »
A couple of points:

Can you get into any top twenty school? Yeah, it's possible if you can increase your LSAT by at least 3-4 points. UCLA's 50% LSAT is 167, so to have a real shot you'd need to really bring that 159 up.

More importantly, I think that maybe you are already making a common mistake. You're focusing on rankings instead of looking at the bigger picture, of which rankings are only a component.

Certain schools are inherently prestigious, and their reputations speak for themselves (Harvard, Yale, etc). There is nothing automatically magical, however, about a school being included in the top 20. Boston U, Iowa and Emory have all been in the top 20, and although they are all good schools, I promise that law firms in LA and San Francisco are not falling over themselves to snatch up Iowa grads.

So, if you have the numbers to get into someplace like Harvard, awesome. You will do great. But if you are trying to decide between Iowa and Loyola-LA for example, and are inclined to go to Iowa because Hey, it's Top 20!, then you need to step back at look at the whole picture.

You need to think about where you want to live and work, what you want to do, how much debt you can handle, etc. If your goal is to be a prosecutor in LA, for example, a big scholarship from Pepperdine or Loyola could be a better bet than a huge debt from an out of state school.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 103