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.

Topics - Citylaw

Pages: [1]

Boalt's Law School Dean had to resign for "alleged" sexual misconduct his B.A. from Oxford and J.D. from Harvard does not guarantee anything and this could all be a false accusation from a  disgruntled employee or real, but this is just an example to those in the law school bubble who have all these feelings about rankings, etc that once your in the real world, real sh*t happens and success is based far more on "you" than your school.

Current Law Students / United States Supreme Court Admission?
« on: October 12, 2015, 08:58:48 AM »
I was just seeing if anyone has either gone through the process or know someone that has gone through the process of being admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. . It looks like you need to find two sponsors, but I was not sure where to look. Anyone have any experience or know anyone that has gone through the process of admission?

Incoming 1Ls / Evidence Why 0L's shoudl not use Rankings
« on: October 08, 2015, 02:34:36 PM »
I am an attorney that has been licensed for a few years and I remember when choosing a law school how important I thought rankings were. However, I have watched the rankings both during and after law school. It is shocking to see how much the rankings of each school I was considering  changed over the past 5 years.

I entered law school in 2008 and was living in New York.  I applied all over the place and was offered a full scholarship to University of Tulsa  and Michigan State.  At the time under the rankings both schools were considered Tier 4. The rankings used to be Tier 1 (top 50) (Tier 2 Top 100) Then they stopped ranking and made an arbitrary ranking of Tier 3 and Tier 4.  Now they simply rank to 150 and then do a RNP for the final 50.

At the time I didn't want to go to a Tier 4 school (A Tier 4 School Doesn't even exist now), because I thought the rankings mattered, but for reasons unknown  Tulsa is now in a 4 way tie for #82 and Michigan State University is in an eight way tie for 94th. (Yes eight way tie for 94th place not making that up. (Direct from U.S. News- .

I am originally from California and applied to several California Schools, which included University of San Francisco, McGeorge and Chapman.

When I was applying McGeorge was barely in the top 100, but now for reasons unknown and under the new changes it is not in the top 150.

San Francisco was 84th, but now 138th.

Chapman was 100th now it is 127th.

The reason for these mass fluctuations is that U.S. News formula is based on nothing really just honestly unidentified people ranking schools on a scantron from 1-5. There is really no tangible way to compare University of Tulsa v. University of San Francisco. They are both ABA schools and will provide a quality education, but Tulsa and San Francisco are different places.

World renowned schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford are at the top and that doesn't change, but to any 0L choosing a mid-level school please do not use the rankings.  Nobody cares whether a school is in eight way tie for 94th or 4 way tie for 82nd.

I am always thankful to an attorney that talked me out of going to Michigan State, because despite my love of College of Sports I am from California and would have died in Michigan winters. Furthermore, I had no desire to live in Michigan and wanted to live in San Francisco. He told me if you want to be a lawyer in San Francisco go to law school in San Francisco. I was like many 0L's and overthinking everything and putting substantial stock in the opinion of a for-profit unregulated magazine known as  U.S. News to make life altering decision. (Not a good idea)

There is nothing wrong with U.S. News offering an opinion and they can rank anything they want, but making a life altering decision based on a magazine's random opinion is not a good idea.

As I now see  by the time you graduate the school you choose based on rankings will have changed substantially.

In my scenario the schools I turned down raised significantly and the schools I attended declined, but nobody cares. 

End of rant.

Current Law Students / Crazy how numbers have changed
« on: September 23, 2015, 03:18:02 PM »
In a complete procrastination move I was curious to see what schools my numbers from years ago would get me into so I check out the old LSAC Law School Predictor.

It is crazy many schools I was rejected from, which I expected I know have a more than 50-75% chance of admission.

Perhaps there is something to this law school application number dropping. The data out there is lacking best I found was this graph from LSAC, but I would be interested to know how many applicants there were in 2008, 2009 and 2010 compared to 2013, 14 and 15.

I imagine this change has something to do with the the bar decline.

Well I should do actual work now.

General Off-Topic Board / District of Columbia Bar Admission
« on: September 17, 2015, 09:34:37 AM »
Just curious if anyone has successfully applied for admission to the District of Columbia by motion from California. These are the instructions, which I followed and am about to submit, but I was just curious if anyone went through the process and could offer any insight into it.

I tried contacting them directly and they just said submit the forms, etc.

Anyways, if anyone has gone through the process I would love to hear how long it took, any random thing to be aware of etc.

Current Law Students / Are Lawyers Getting Dumber Aritcle?
« on: August 21, 2015, 01:52:39 PM »

Friend just posted this and thought the board could use a new topic.

I think part of the statistical dropoff has to do with over-enrollment between 2006-2009 it seems like admission rates were at an all time high due to the financail crisis etc. Then everybody bitched & moaned that there were to many lawyers no the student body is a little less qualified and this trend will continue as the enrollment will get so low that there will not be enoug lawyers then to many will jump on the band-wagon etc.

Just my two cents. Plus there are 10 practice MBE questions for anyone dying to take their chance on the bar again.


Cal-Bar is shortening the exam from three days to two. Maybe they will hand out participation ribbons next.

If I could pass a 3 day exam plenty of people can. I don't think the bar exam needs to be easier there are plenty of jokers out there capable of passing a three day exam. What will this bring on.

Probably just more pissed that I had to take a 3 day exam and others will not.

Current Law Students / Donald Sterling Lawsuit ?
« on: June 17, 2014, 07:32:04 AM »
Again not necessarily law school related although I am sure this is being talked about in law school classrooms.

What are your thoughts on Donald Sterling's position.

If you get to the facts Donald Sterling is an 81 year old crime victim losing his property as a direct result of the crime committed against him.

Donald Sterling however, is basically a horrible person and I think even he would admit to that.

As for the legal standpoint I know first amendment will not really apply, because the NBA is not a government agency. His due process property rights might be impacted.

There is also an anti-trust argument, but I cannot really articulate it.

I would love to see a copy of the lawsuit he filed, but I haven't been able to locate it.

Just curious to hear people's thoughts.

I have heard a lot of noise about this, but no real great legal analysis on the issue and I would love to hear the arguments from both sides.

Current Law Students / Citizens United Case Debate?
« on: June 12, 2014, 05:00:23 PM »
I was recently over hearing a bunch of people arguing about this case at a coffee shop and I know in law school we discussed this briefly, but I wanted to refresh my recollection and that it would make for an interesting thread.

My understanding of the case is as follows:

A conservative group Citizens United wanted to air a documentary bashing Hilary Clinton before the Democratic Primary election. There was a Federal Statute that stood in the way of airing the documentary.

Citizen United filed suit alleging the statute violated their free speech and the documentary should be allowed. The court then decided by a 5-4 funding the documentary was free speech and allowed, which in essence allowed corporations to provide more money to campaigns to protect freedom of speech.

First I was wondering if my understanding is even correct and what people think.

My two cents if my understanding is correct is that groups, corporations, people, etc should be able to say what they want to say, but I understand the argument that is creates an unfair playing field.

Overhearing that conversation made me think of this board and I wanted to see if anyone had additional insight.

Pages: [1]