|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:judging by responses, I think i need to clarify: I think you're under the misperception that all this advice is only for people who want to "end up in a big firm, or make shittons of cash, or any of that" and isn't applicable to those who would 'settle' (lol) for government jobs or "a job in a small firm and just making a living" a dude I know who went to notre dame law school went out of his way toeing that same line when I told him not to go to school a couple years ago, and now he's hosed! Mr Gentleman fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Nov 1, 2010 |
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:judging by responses, I think i need to clarify: I don't think you will understand. you will not get a job. you will not make a living. There are people in this very thread who graduated from much better law schools you could ever hope to get a sniff at and they are unemployed because there are no jobs. None of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:23
|
|
|
Your undergrad degree doesn't matter (unless you want to practice patent, but it's too late anyway). What matters is that your LSAT score is really low. Your best shot is ending up at a crappy law school and you might one day hope if you are lucky as all get out to make $30k writing wills for dying widows. It's not a matter of you being too stupid (although you may be); it is a matter that even very smart people from very good schools cannot get jobs because they do not exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Without a technical background, this is very very difficult. I know some people who have successfully done so, but it's a huge long shot. Also, all the good copyright work is focused in New York and California, so you are basically stuck with trademark. I'm going to have to disagree with this. Besides patent prosecution (which seems just terrible), I'm not sure what area of IP you need a technical background for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
The problem (at least the one I faced when pursuing IP work during/right after law school) is IP firms were unlikely to consider you unless you had a technical degree, even if you only wanted to do TM/C. There are plenty of people with tech degrees, so they'd rather take someone who can practice in all three areas rather than just two. I can't imagine that that's changed much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:I would be satisfied going to a t2 school and getting a job in a small firm and just making a living. If that isn't remotely possible, then, fine, I'd more than willing to listen to suggestions of other areas of law that would be more fitting. Ok. Fine. Here is your advice. Let us assume that with your 157/3.8 that you apply to T2 schools. Step 1: Selecting your school You must must must go to a school in one of these regions: A. Your hometown region where you have a ton of family / friends. B. Your college region where you have a ton of friends / work connections. C. The region in which you would like to live, and (this is important) you have legitimate connections to that region which would be a viable reason for you to want to live there. The objective here is that your school must be close to the people that know you, because... Step 2: Network your rear end off ...you're going to need the help of anyone and everyone you know and can meet. Seriously. From the moment you step on campus, you need to start talking to lawyers in your region, and you need to talk up your connections to the region. You need to go to free local and state bar events: luncheons, brown bags, free seminars and presentations, etc. All of the local lawyers, no matter their practice area, should know who you are, from 1L onwards. Because when you finally get your diploma, you want to have 3 years of networking already in place. You won't be asking for a job until you get into your 3L year, but you need to start your networking ASAP, because your personal charm is going to get you places that your lovely diploma will not. When networking, you want to learn as much as you can about every type of practice, so that you can start selecting a concentration. You will talk to as many lawyers as you can, and seek honest opinions about their practices. You don't want to tell people you are interested in IP law, because very few small firms do that, and very few are going to hire someone straight out of law school. The types of practices that you are looking at: family law, general civil litigation, construction law, landlord-tenant, maybe criminal defense, maybe basic estate planning, personal injury, etc. Step 3: Make sure your grades are good. Can't stress this enough. Your networking gets you face time, and your grades give you legitimacy. Your school as a T2, won't give you legitimacy, although you will be attending a school in a region that you have connections with, which will help. Your grades must be good, because you will be competing against your co-students, and there won't be many spots. You will still have trouble finding a job. entris fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Nov 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
commish posted:I'm going to have to disagree with this. Besides patent prosecution (which seems just terrible), I'm not sure what area of IP you need a technical background for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
diospadre posted:The problem (at least the one I faced when pursuing IP work during/right after law school) is IP firms were unlikely to consider you unless you had a technical degree, even if you only wanted to do TM/C. There are plenty of people with tech degrees, so they'd rather take someone who can practice in all three areas rather than just two. I can't imagine that that's changed much. Well, there is more to IP than patents, copyrights and trademarks, but what you say is probably true for IP boutiques, where they probably prefer people with technical backgrounds. And gvibes, I know some partners who think it is an asset NOT to have a technical background when doing patent litigation, as you can more easily explain things in a nontechnical way to the jury/judge. I'm not saying that having a technical degree won't help your chances; I just don't think it's necessary to actual practice most areas of IP law. Firms might disagree, and that's really the only opinion that matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
entris posted:Ok. Fine. Here is your advice. I'm seconding all of this, and also adding that even if you do everything in this post you will be competing with kids from T14s who are, in fact, a hell of a lot smarter than you. Unless you go to, like, Boise State or something because no smart people want to go to Idaho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
All right, I'm seeing several realistic paths then: A) Try and get into a lower tier school with my current score, degree, experience. This means staying in northern midwest/great plains. Get to know everyone, work my rear end off at school, choose a different area than Intellectual property. Be in a terrible position as far as getting a job at a law firm, barring some miracle. Either end up at the very bottom in a firm somewhere, probably making enough to live on, at least, OR end up in semi-related or completely unrelated field that never required JD to begin with, and have spent lots of time money on something I'll never use. B) Dedicate the next months of my life to studying for a re-take of the LSAT. If my score is Significantly better, then look at getting into the best school I possibly can. This might include waiting a year, just because by this point my application would be pretty late, and it would be much harder to get accepted even with a decent score, and my chances for any kind of a scholarship disappeared months ago. Possibly apply, then, if I can't get into anywhere good, blow more money applying again next fall. Work at whatever i can in the downtime. Go to a decent school, work my rear end off, network as much as possible, and graduate into a still lovely job market and start fighting for a position with the last 5 years' graduates. Maybe end up in a job at a law firm, maybe not. C)My least favorite option, but I can't ignore it: Cut my losses and look for work in another field that I won't hate and can make a living on. other options I've considered have been trying to get work as a bottom rung editor/proofreader at a publishing firm. In all likelihood, this would mean going to grad school of some sort, but that's not a given. Possibly consider a masters in english, work towards a PhD and teach. I'm not a fan of this, but I can't ignore it. I'm sure there are other options, but I honestly haven't explored them too closely, because I have been advised throughout college that everything I was doing was perfectly sufficient to get into a respectable law school and get a job. In hindsight, not looking into other options was foolish, but it's too late now. Is this an accurate look at how hosed I appear to be, Or is it better or worse?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
D) hit the lottery I'm still waiting on D myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:58
|
|
|
Your best option is "PhD in English"? That's really bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:59
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:A D) Go back to school for another semester, get several prereqs out of the way, and get a useful PhD. Also, if you get a useful PhD (and retake the LSAT and get a good score on that), then you will likely get a free ride to law school and have a really good shot at IP law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
I mean don't let me stop you from getting a PhD in English if you want really one, but you clearly have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
Chakron posted:Your best option is "PhD in English"? That's really bad. Not sure about "best" option, but yeah. If i go that route, I'm guarateed going to be teaching.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:02
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:If i go that route, I'm guarateed going to be teaching. That's not even a good troll. Good luck in this thread!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:Not sure about "best" option, but yeah. If i go that route, I'm guarateed going to be teaching. Chakron posted:That's not even a good troll. Good luck in this thread!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:do you mean "guaranteed to be teaching high school" or "guaranteed to be teaching at a university level," because if you think good jobs grow on trees for english phds then holy loving lol I'm not trolling. I'm saying that if I got PhD in english, that's be about the only job it'd be applicable in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
Good luck in what is sure to be an illustrious career!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:11
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:I would be satisfied going to a t2 school and getting a job in a small firm and just making a living. If that isn't remotely possible, then, fine, I'd more than willing to listen to suggestions of other areas of law that would be more fitting. I do have my mind set on law, and I have spent a lot of time considering my other options, and i'd appreciate if we could avoid repeating all of the OP's information about why law school is a bad idea. I've read it time and again, and I know the kind of debt/job market hell that it entails. I'm looking for advice here, not a flat out "you're too stupid, go away" It's a bad idea because your LSAT is horrendous and will land you at a school that screams "DO NOT HIRE" for anyone hiring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/opinion/l01workers.html?ref=opinionquote:I graduated from law school shortly after the economy collapsed. I got good grades. I was published in a legal journal. I did everything I was supposed to do. But hundreds of heartfelt cover letters and polished résumés later, I struggle to even get an interview. Whenever I think about law school I come back to this thread to remind myself why not to go. This week's LTE in the NYTimes reinforces my desire to not go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
Forever Zero posted:Organic Chemistry and the MCAT also opening up a new MD school practically requires an act of congress. MD schools also are incredibly selective the lowest MD schools have a 3.5 science GPA and a 26-27 MCAT not to mention the hoops you have to jump through and each student must be interviewed. There is only one for-profit D.O. school, it hasn't even graduated a class, and it's still controversial. Accreditation is otherwise pretty similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:I'm not trolling. I'm saying that if I got PhD in english, that's be about the only job it'd be applicable in. You do realize that only like 50% of English PhDs can get jobs teaching right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:27
|
|
|
I have started applying to non-law jobs in an attempt to get one so I can support my decision to drop out at the end of this semester (I hope).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
Petey posted:You do realize that only like 50% of English PhDs can get jobs teaching right. I do. I never said I thought it meant a guaranteed job. Either way, I get the picture: Law school flat out isn't a good option, especially since since my LSAT is very poor, and I don't have any reasonable chance of getting a job at a law firm if I did go through with law school. I need to put a lot of work in to determining what other career would be better for me to pursue. This is probably (ok, I guess it is) what I needed to hear, regardless of whether I'm happy about it or not. At least you guys got some mild entertainment out of it, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:I do. I never said I thought it meant a guaranteed job. I'd take some time to decide anything, really. A year or three. I think people who go straight through are doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
Petey posted:Is that the CLS curriculum? When you say CLS do you mean Critical Legal Studies perchance? I just did an exam on the topic ;O
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 01:16
|
|
|
Someone living the dream in wonderful Bethel, AK has been arrested for his involvement in/knowledge of tying up a 19 year old to a table saw and bludgeoning him to death. This raises the question: why tie him to a table saw and bludgeon him to death instead of, oh I don't know, table sawing him to death? In other news, a job position has just opened up in wonderful Bethel, AK! (Rural stipend included!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:When you say CLS do you mean Critical Legal Studies perchance? Yep (though it could mean Columbia Law School I suppose)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
BigHead posted:This raises the question: why tie him to a table saw and bludgeon him to death instead of, oh I don't know, table sawing him to death? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-O1nftQgeU#t=1m47s
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
Petey posted:Is that the CLS curriculum? entris posted:I vote against Section 3. It's even more removed from the realities of law practice than your typical law school experience. You spend 1 year learning all sorts of crit legal theories that have zero, and I do mean zero, application to your career as an attorney. You will sit through lecture after lecture of incredibly abstract, postmodernist critiques of the law, and while this area of legal scholarship is quite interesting as an academic exercise, it really skews your perspective about legal practice. The harm: Section 3 distracts you from an appropriate career search, it doesn't help you figure out what kind of law you want to practice. Students in Section 3 do spend half their time learning theory instead of black letter law. Whether that approach is better from a practical standpoint probably comes down to the individual. I hate rote memorization, and classes emphasizing theory helped me to retain information by providing me with mental frameworks through which it could be organized. I've found that background helpful for mooting and for writing articles, and I believe that it has helped me to come up with creative solutions at work when it's necessary. Many of my classmates found theory frustrating, however, and probably would have preferred memorizing holdings to psychoanalyzing judges. It just comes down to personality. That said, Section 3 students are exposed to (most of) the material covered in a standard first year curriculum. They just need to spend more time with hornbooks if they expect to have it memorized before barbri. entris posted:I know many people from Section 3, all of them are great people. Most of them hate the practice of law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
Stanley fish is a sophist and a scoundrel tbh. I enjoyed the CLS stuff we studied particularly as it related to ideology in the law in relation to property/crime/as contained in Bills of Rights and stuff but I really thought the Anti-foundationalist crap from Stanley Fish detracted from the whole project.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:All right, I'm seeing several realistic paths then: D) GO TEACH ENGLISH. William Munny posted:I have started applying to non-law jobs in an attempt to get one so I can support my decision to drop out at the end of this semester (I hope). I'll miss our bantering 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:
Yeah I was being a little overblown. I opted not to do Section 3 because I had a BA in Philosophy and I had already spent two years studying postmodernism and various critiques of structuralism etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
All the cool people opt-in to Section 3. This is a fact. Take Section 3 if you want to meet cool people and make friends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 02:30
|
|
|
Draile posted:All the cool people opt-in to Section 3. This is a fact. Take Section 3 if you want to meet cool people and make friends. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 02:35
|
|
|
Post-structuralism and post-modernism is an awful historical blip. Our schools are awash with French writers and sophists. Bring back the Western Canon I say!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 02:38
|
|
|
Critical Legal Studies is stupid, useless pedantic bullshit that makes me think less of you for taking it. Strangely enough, so is the regular law school curriculum, so, gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:I'm not trolling. I'm saying that if I got PhD in english, that's be about the only job it'd be applicable in. A Ph.D. in a liberal arts field you say? http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Mookie posted:Critical Legal Studies is stupid, useless pedantic bullshit that makes me think less of you for taking it. I reserve condemnation for those people who studied CLS or other related theories, who have since graduated law school, and who still spout off about how cool it is and how wise and smart the crit scholars are. quote:Post-structuralism and post-modernism is an awful historical blip. The longevity of Grumblefish's bit is astounding. ...France is part of "The West" so....
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 03:09
|
|