|
~
Dr. Mantis Toboggan fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Aug 11, 2021 |
#
¿
May 11, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
What is with all these people getting jobs and interviews in the last several pages? This does not compute.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:I'm entering college next year and I have to decide whether or not to ask for credit for some courses I took last year during the summer, with the caveat that the grades I got will be permanently entered onto my transcript. I want to keep law school open as an option post college, but I don't want to have to work my rear end off to cancel out the grades I got in those classes. So, I was wondering what sort of GPA I should have to get into a law school in the top five or six spots -- I know that usually it's basically a 4.0, but I'm going to be at Harvard, so I thought that might make the GPA requirement a little less stringent. I don't know though. First of all, it doesn't matter if you went to Harvard or Buttfuck State for undergrad; the schools just care about the numbers, because they are what makes their USNews ranking go up. If you and a candidate from Buttfuck State are totally equal, then they might choose you over him, but if his numbers are any better, he's probably getting in before you. Second, the GPA you need is dependent on what your LSAT score is, and vice versa. The LSAT is slightly more important than your GPA at most schools. Everything else is almost irrelevant unless you have done something truly outstanding and/or special with your life thus far. If you have to ask if what you've done is outstanding and/or special enough to make a difference in your admissions chances, then chances are it's probably not. Try the predictor at http://www.lawschoolpredictor.com/ and play around with different numbers. Generally, you would need, at a bare minimum, a GPA of around 3.6 and an LSAT of 170+, unless you're an under represented minority, which is a huge boost in admissions chances. The conventional wisdom is that URM status is worth about 10 extra points on the LSAT.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Does anyone else get irrationally annoyed at the phrase "cushy gig?" It is so goddamn annoying to me for some reason. I've always only associated the word "gig" with music performances. To post something on-topic: don't go, no jobs, die alone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2010 14:16
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:But why would the T14, for example, care, if they're so firmly entrenched at the top? Does USN & WR really weight GPA that heavily? Yes. GPA counts for 10%, and the LSAT counts for 12.5%. This is why the LSAT is weighted slightly higher in admissions decissions. See http://www.leiterrankings.com/usnews/guide.shtml for a complete breakdown.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
entris posted:Hahaha. And the good stuff you get is just a shinier, prettier version of the stuff you already had anyway, which serves no real purpose except to make people think you are better/more classy. And you are too jaded at the end to really enjoy that stuff anyway. And you alienate everyone else you know that doesn't join the grind in the process. And you gain weight and subsist off of food that mostly gets delivered to your poo poo, it is really the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
TyChan posted:I know I'm going to sound like an incredible snob saying this, but I'd rather be doing securities litigation or big commercial contract disputes than sanding my mortality away on a wheel of small coverage disputes and slip and falls. At least for civil litigation, the bigger firms do tend to have more interesting cases. Ah, maybe I interpreted his post a different way. I was referring to the material rewards; many people would think a person driving a Lexus is better than a person driving a Camry, much like most WoW players would think someone decked out in all the best gear is better than someone in lower level stuff. I don't think your statement is snobbish at all. Most people would probably find that kind of work more interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2010 15:21
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Cars from Charlottesville. Interjections by Peter Pan's nemesis. Hook Arrs!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
Current law students/lawyers are like Adam Sandler in Billy Madison, and prospective students are like that fat kid whose cheeks he grabs and jiggles and to whom he whispers, bug-eyed, "Don't you say that! Don't you ever say that! Stay here! Stay as long as you can! For the love of God, cherish it! You have to cherish it!" Come to think of it, Billy Madison teaches a lot of good life lessons. edit: such as "peeing your pants is cool" Dr. Mantis Toboggan fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jul 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Comrades! We are in luck. NYT posted:The students apply in their sophomore or junior years in college and agree to major in humanities or social science, rather than the hard sciences. Too late, unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
Lykourgos, are you trying to argue that the defense attorney, if he knows his client is guilty, has a moral duty to inform the court that his client is guilty, or are you trying to argue that he legally must do so (or at the very least withdraw from the case)? You know what the answer is in the latter case, and the former is subject to debate. It would save a whole lot of time if you made your argument clear.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Gadamer posted:Can't tell if you're trolling Google BU; see what comes up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
Gadamer posted:If I click a few pages I stop seeing Boston and see Binghamton University. It's Boston, dude. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:apparently one of my (asian) friends got told by a latino partner not to worry about something, all the latinos took care of one another If taking care of one another means giving her a job, she should be ecstatic. And probably learn Spanish.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
entris posted:Oh wow. Haha, I know what you meant, but it would be the cruelest of employers who would actually fire someone for showing up to start a few days early.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
IrritationX posted:I think this is a fine idea. If not actually making people lawyers, giving them just enough of a legal education to teach people what the system's really about and what goes into a legal decision, especially appeals. Then I wouldn't get stupid questions like whether Phelps' protests at funerals are free speech or not. People don't seem to appreciate "it depends" as an answer. The country would be much better off if there were two mandatory semester-long courses in high school: 1) Personal finance, and 2) Basics of the US legal system.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
This HAD to be one of you guys: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/10/the-barter-deal-from-a-law-graduate-craigslist-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#more-41834
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Came here to post this I've got my Magnum condoms and my wad of hundreds; I'm ready to plow!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, but they could significantly tighten standards. There is a problem with lovely law schools, being, well lovely. This is what ABA accreditation is meant to prevent. It doesn't do that right now. If states made their bars more difficult, it would reduce the supply of lawyers some (or at least delay when they enter the market; surely the percentage of people who NEVER pass the bar despite multiple tries is pretty small), but more individuals would still be hosed out of all of their tuition money. I definitely agree that making bars harder would help from the supply side of things, but it seems as though that would only worsen the problem of people getting into debt that they will never realistically be able to pay back. Disregarding the fact that it has very little incentive to do so, could the ABA force law schools to make admissions standards much higher? If it legally cannot reduce the number of law schools, it could reduce the supply of lawyer by making it tougher to get in. Schools would probably have to be forced to close without being mandated to do so. E: Oops, I may have just repeated what you said in the first part of your post. Did you mean the standards that the law schools are held to or the standards that incoming students are held to? Both should be tightened; I agree with you either way. 
Dr. Mantis Toboggan fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2010 16:47
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Couldn't the state supreme courts just establish the heightened requirements and then reject 90% of the schools? I always thought it was the courts that granted the rights of audience, and the ABA was just a bunch of dickheads who sat around making brochures. Couldn't the state courts simply require that schools provide on the job training every semester, and maintain a faculty consisting entirely of professors with a minimum of a decade or so professional experience as a practising lawyer? That would immediately wipe out a large number of toilet schools such as the t14s/t1s, and ensure that students actually know what a courtroom looks like. Grumblefish! Welcome back.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:All law school classes should be taught by adjuncts and the tuition should be respectively lowered (since they pay those guys like $1000 a credit) But if you lower tuition, how will you pay the $80,000 salary of the guy in the career services office that makes coffee for everyone? Think of the administrators!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 15:10
|
|
|
areyoucontagious posted:I have a question about other advanced degrees and how they factor into my acceptance (or lack thereof) into a school: Nothing matters except your LSAT, your undergraduate GPA, and your ethnic background. Edit: I should be more accurate. If you are a white guy with a 170 LSAT, a 3.8 GPA, and a bunch of graduate work, you will get in over a white guy with a 170 LSAT and a 3.8 GPA who only went to undergrad and didn't do anything interesting during/after college. However, if you are a white guy with a 170 LSAT, a 3.8 GPA, and a bunch of graduate work, you will probably not get in over a white guy with a 171 LSAT and a 3.9 GPA who only went to undergrad and didn't do anything interesting during/after college. Dr. Mantis Toboggan fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Nov 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
BigHead posted:This is a I started answering those one by one, but stopped. Aren't those ALL false? The only ones that are questionable are: Plane ticket: No, not by the simple act of purchasing a plane ticket. I believe that you may no longer refuse consent to a search once you enter an airport and go near the security checkpoint, however. Subway ticket: Not sure Computer: Again, not by the simple act of buying a computer. Your contract with your ISP may make you consent to tracking. Car: No Window: No Public school: I don't know Loan: No, unless the terms of your loan specifically provide for it Unemployment: Definitely not in Wisconsin, other states could be different though. Section 8 housing: I don't know Public defender: No AA: No Mortgage: No I could be totally wrong on some of them. EDIT: vvv Yeah, while you may have these rights de jure, knowing that you have them requires education (which costs money) and actually having them upheld usually requires access to a competent attorney that will spend the time working on your issue (which costs money). That's the point you were making, right BigHead? Dr. Mantis Toboggan fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Dec 3, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
poofactory posted:Immigration. Though most people here would classify it as shitlaw. Anyone who calls someone pulling in over 360k a year as practicing "shitlaw" has some serious hangups about prestige.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
Hey, don't worry guys, legal services firms are the second-most profitable businesses to start! If you somehow are unable to get even one of the plentiful backup $80k/year, 40-hour/week federal jobs, you'll be totally fine just starting your own shop. Maybe you should go to law school after all! http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/17/small-business-sageworks-ent-fin-cx_mf_0118mostprofitable_slide_3.html?thisSpeed=undefined
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:[ask] me about my strict rule on diamond carat size for my prospective fiance to not get turned down flat! She expects a bigger diamond the OLDER she is? I don't think she understands us men. Edit: Or does that refer to the guy's age? That might make more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
Lawyer & Law School Megathread #13: "I seriously consider suicide...counts a 'good' day."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
I thought this was a fine post (from the engineering thread):Martin Random posted:While I'm an excellent lawyer and the degree has taken me to some amazing places, the simple fact of the matter is that I hate doing what lawyers do. I don't enjoy the work. The nature of the profession is parasitic. It doesn't involve making anything, or really contributing anything. I hate having to work with lawyers, they are generally either repugnant, insane, insectoid creatures who gleefully immerse themselves in bureaucratic rules and minutia, or they are lying, aggressive, delusional sociopaths. I hate hearing lawyers talk about their work. When I see them talk excitedly with each other over the trivial minutiae of some motion in a case, I want to gouge my eyes out. I hate doing legal research, and I hate researching legal principles, because they are all arbitrary. I hate putting together deals for corporations, because the work is largely derivative, boiler plate copying of documents from other corporations, mixed in with an insane pessimism and unquenchable paranoia about missing details or pitfalls. The paranoia is unquenchable because there is no way to sit down and establish anything with absolute certainty - the nature of the profession is one of uncertainty and insecurity, based upon nothing but arbitrary and changing rulings, regulations, and so forth. The profession is going downhill - any fool can see that. There will be no job security for any positions other than the most entrenched, indisposable, soulless masters of obscure regulatory schemes cocooned inside ossified, dying bureaucratic nightmares reminiscent of the Byzantine empire. The job market for lawyers will get worse and worse - I'm well set with a successful career, yes, but I am looking 5-10 years down the road, when poo poo really starts to get bad in this country, and the law is not the place to be. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3209369&pagenumber=43#post388719975
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:How could you not see the username "Hippokleides" and immediately know it was grumbles Grumblefish spotting guide: 1) British English spelling/idioms and British cultural references 2) Very recent registration date 3) Posts displaying contempt for lawyers working in the private sector 4) Greek-ish username
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
~
Dr. Mantis Toboggan fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:J Miracle, I'm guessing you have not been through law school? Oh no you didn't 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 21:53
|
|