|
billion dollar bitch posted:That's the lovely thing about this: there isn't a curve for clinics, and usually everyone gets a/a-/b+. I've never heard of anyone getting a b- in a clinic class... Eh, I thought clinics were graded on the seminar curve, i.e., the super easy one thats based on an A- average.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 19:42 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 06:25 |
|
Starpluck posted:I came into this thread expecting some useful advice and encouragement to pursue my dream of becoming a lawyer. I do want to become one despite this thread pretty much being a “Why you shouldn’t be lawyer” thread and it’s stressing me out. Answer the following questions and we can tailor advice to you: 1.) What undergrad are you attending currently? If none, how long have you been out of school? 2.) What was your undergrad GPA (NOT graduate school GPA or any other GPA)? 3.) What was your LSAT score? 4.) Why do you want to go to law school? This thread SHOULD stress you out. Going to law school is the right choice for probably (vastly unscientific answer incoming) the right choice for between 1-3% of applicants. Answer the best you can and we'll give you the best advice we can. People will also be snarky but you will get good advice too.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 19:52 |
|
Feces Starship posted:This thread SHOULD stress you out. Going to law school is the right choice for probably (vastly unscientific answer incoming) the right choice for between 1-3% of applicants. Answer the best you can and we'll give you the best advice we can. People will also be snarky but you will get good advice too. I passed the flow chart and even I think it was a bad idea.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 20:00 |
|
CaptainScraps posted:I passed the flow chart and even I think it was a bad idea. We should update the flow chart. Regrettably, I think it's a little bit optimistic at this point.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 20:03 |
|
Feces Starship posted:We should update the flow chart. Regrettably, I think it's a little bit optimistic at this point. Some of the employment charts from the OP are also pretty outdated. e.g. the one based on employment data from the class of 2005.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 20:23 |
|
Feces Starship posted:We should update the flow chart. Regrettably, I think it's a little bit optimistic at this point. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked before determining URM status. Without asking those first, it's just assumed that someone, anyone, should apply.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 20:30 |
|
Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. I'll start the process rolling to appeal... I emailed her briefly to ask if it was a clerical error. She sent this back: David, That is the correct grade for the semester. I hope you have found courses that you will enjoy this term. Jane And yeah, they're supposed to track the seminar grading curve (but that's what I meant by no real curve). billion dollar bitch fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Jan 23, 2011 |
# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:42 |
|
Feces Starship posted:We should update the flow chart. Regrettably, I think it's a little bit optimistic at this point. Yeah I applied to law school based on that, thinking it was cool if I got into a T14. Apparently that's not the case at all anymore.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:42 |
|
Out of curiosity how many 2Ls do we have from T14s that don't currently have jobs lined up for the summer? Or have jobs but got shut out of big law when that's what they really wanted?
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:51 |
|
HooKars posted:Out of curiosity how many 2Ls do we have from T14s that don't currently have jobs lined up for the summer? Or have jobs but got shut out of big law when that's what they really wanted? At Columbia I was pleasantly surprised. Most of my friends are all set with at least something close to what they wanted. There are exceptions but I expected wailing and bloodshed to be prevalent but that's not the case.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:55 |
|
I know the conversation just circled transfer-chat not too long ago, but that was someone from a T14. What would I need to transfer from a T30 to a high enough T10 so that the transfer (including traveling expenses, higher tuition, loss of grades/1L contacts, etc.) would be worth it? I guess that's two questions. The first question is what school would be good enough to beat out all of the negatives of transferring? Harvard, obviously, but anything else? I think there are some Columbia/Chicago people in here complaining about no jobs, so just Harvard? edit: or maybe not considering Starship's simul-post above? Second question is what is the lowest minimum GPA that would not immediately put my application in the shredder?
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:55 |
|
Apparently, .8% of people in a seminar/clinic are supposed to get B-'s.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:00 |
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Apparently, .8% of people in a seminar/clinic are supposed to get B-'s. So, uh, was it running over a pet or sleeping with the prof's daughter and giving her an STD?
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:01 |
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. I'll start the process rolling to appeal... drat, that's cold.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:02 |
|
Green Crayons posted:I know the conversation just circled transfer-chat not too long ago, but that was someone from a T14. 1)It depends on the T30. Fordham -> NYU/Columbia is a pretty typical move and I think (but am not positive) it's still a net plus even ITE because it's practically expected for everyone eligible for Fordham's LR to get out. Random school -> MVB might not be if your current school is closer to your preferred area. Unlike a T14 -> X transfer I think t6 is probably worthwhile but I'd prefer using the acceptance to try and get scholarship $, instead. 2)It used to be top 10-15% but this is pretty old info so idk about now.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:10 |
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. I'll start the process rolling to appeal... Wow. Seriously, did you do no work at all? I've gotten some crappy grades in law school, and I was never surprised by them because I knew that I had done nothing and basically deserved it.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:15 |
|
[quote="Green Crayons"] . Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Aug 17, 2011 |
# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:26 |
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Apparently, .8% of people in a seminar/clinic are supposed to get B-'s. Yeah what happened man?
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:13 |
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Apparently, .8% of people in a seminar/clinic are supposed to get B-'s. did she confuse you with someone else or something
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:16 |
|
Green Crayons posted:I know the conversation just circled transfer-chat not too long ago, but that was someone from a T14. Q1: It depends more on where you're transferring from, not the school itself but the region. If you're at Hastings, for example, then transferring to Berkeley and hoping to land somewhere in Cali makes a lot of sense. And also where you'd like to be for the next couple years in general should factor in. If you're at bumfuck nowhere right now but want to be in Chicago and can see yourself working there, then hit up UChi. Q2: Top 10% but the vast majority who came to Boalt are top 5%. That includes both T2s and T1s and even a few T14s.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:34 |
|
No, I did SO much work for that class. But she kept calling me out for things that were just part of the way I function as a student. For instance, I usually just remember things, instead of taking notes. I'm good at it: I was on track for Stone, at least, and I graduated college PBK. So I wrote down phone numbers and things when I was interviewing a client (over the phone), but didn't transcribe the whole conversation or anything. And then during our meeting to discuss the interview, she asks me a fairly detailed point regarding the writeup that my partner had done (I had put the facts into casemaps, she had done the writeup). I didn't recall, and then she calls me out for not having notes, and for not going over my partner's work to check for issues I didn't agree with/understand (I had skimmed it, but I had been concerned with the other stuff). She mentioned this incident about every single time we had a discussion about things... apparently not taking notes is irresponsible and unprofessional, and I let my partner down by not going over her work. Of course I took notes thereafter, but it was too late.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:41 |
|
billion dollar bitch posted:No, I did SO much work for that class. But she kept calling me out for things that were just part of the way I function as a student. For instance, I usually just remember things, instead of taking notes. I'm good at it: I was on track for Stone, at least, and I graduated college PBK. Yeah if that's an accurate representation of your only transgressions, you really should consider looking into making some sort of formal appeal. Above all, remember that this grade isn't the end of the world. It sucks and seems unfair but life will go on and it doesn't fundamentally undermine the hard work you've done to this point.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:52 |
|
Just discovered this: http://www.houseofrussell.com/legalhistory/alh/docs/rodell.html FRED RODELL, "Goodbye to Law Reviews," 23 Virginia Law Review 38-45 (November 1936). posted:There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content. That, I think, about covers the ground. And though it is in the law reviews that the most highly regarded legal literature--and I by no means except those fancy rationalizations of legal action called judicial opinions--is regularly embalmed, it is in the law reviews that a pennyworth of content is most frequently concealed beneath a pound of so-called style. The average law review writer is peculiarly able to say nothing with an air of great importance. When I used to read law reviews, I used constantly to be reminded of an elephant trying to swat a fly. Read it and weep (for your life, for your soul, and most of all, for your writing)
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 00:01 |
|
Petey posted:Just discovered this: Petey you read more legal scholarship than anyone actually in law school. I may or may not be counting professors in that statement.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 00:03 |
|
billion dollar bitch posted:No, I did SO much work for that class. But she kept calling me out for things that were just part of the way I function as a student. For instance, I usually just remember things, instead of taking notes. I'm good at it: I was on track for Stone, at least, and I graduated college PBK. I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional. Taking detailed notes of client telephone calls and meetings isn't pointless busywork. You may THINK you have a good memory of what the client said because during the clinic you probably had, at most, a few uncomplicated cases. When you have dozens of clients calling about complicated legal matters that could stretch out for months/years, there's no way you're going to remember every conversation you have. Plus, a contemporaneous record of client interactions is invaluable not only for allowing other attorneys to see how the case is progressing, it will also help you when filling out time sheets. Most importantly, should the client should sue/grieve you in the future, having a contemporaneous record of who said what (and when) could potentially save your law license. When your client sues you for malpractice after an unfavorable legal battle alleging you failed to inform them about a potential issue/defense 12 months ago, then I hope your memory is as good as you claim because "uh, I think I remember saying something about estoppel issues in January...maybe?" isn't going to cut it. If your note taking got better over the semester then go ahead and appeal, but I do want to stress to all soon-to-be lawyers the importance of documenting client interactions. GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jan 24, 2011 |
# ? Jan 24, 2011 00:17 |
|
So, on a lighter note, new editions of textbooks and suggested hornbooks: Big scam, or biggest scam?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 00:51 |
|
The Warszawa posted:Petey you read more legal scholarship than anyone actually in law school. I may or may not be counting professors in that statement. I may not be in law school but I am still going to Die Alone so in that sense we are all in cahoots. e: but seriously, that Rodell article is going right up there with Orwell's Politics and the English Language as my favorite critiques of writing of any sort. Petey fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 24, 2011 |
# ? Jan 24, 2011 01:25 |
|
Petey posted:
That was awesome and I just noticed the date. On another note, I have to put together a hypo for a fake hearing on state secrets privilege. It isn't for a grade or associated with a class. If any of y'all can think of a sweet hypo to debate about, feel free to post it here.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 01:26 |
|
Omerta posted:That was awesome and I just noticed the date. The best part is that 25 years after the fact he came back with a second version that basically added five more pages of hating to the first. Wiki posted:Fred Rodell (March 1, 1907 – June 4, 1980) was an American law professor most famous for his critiques of the U.S. legal profession. A professor at Yale Law School for more than forty years, Rodell was described in 1980 as the "bad boy of American legal academia" (by Charles Alan Wright, "Goodbye to Fred Rodell," 89 Yale L.J. 1455, quoted in the [1] Pitt Law School Web site). Rodell Owned.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 01:30 |
|
GamingHyena posted:I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional. Yes, this is a good point, and I appreciate you making it.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 01:38 |
|
Petey posted:The best part is that 25 years after the fact he came back with a second version that basically added five more pages of hating to the first. It's not specifically about legal writing, but, just the other day, I saw this and loved it: http://www.wimp.com/speaktypography/ It's a condemnation of the hesitant, wishy-washy, and unsure way we speak in recent years.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 02:01 |
|
BigHead posted:How was it? delicious
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 02:10 |
|
GamingHyena posted:I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional. Thanks for posting this, I'm going to try to remember it once I start dealing with real legal work. I'm normally not a big fan of super detailed notes in class but that'll need to change soon.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 02:55 |
|
GamingHyena posted:I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional. Excellent and true advice. All I can add is that (particularly as a law student) your issue-spotting abilities are not perfect; the facts that a case may turn upon may not be the same facts that you thought were important enough to remember. Keeping detailed notes and detailed file minutes sucks, but is absolutely necessary. Better a B- than a lost job or reprimand from the Bar or a ding on your malpractice insurance. I learned via a couple of truly inspired rear end chewings. At the time I'd been in practice about eight years. Suck it up and develop the habit now.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 04:28 |
|
Are we winning? There were 42,096 test takers for the December 2010 administration. This figure is down 16.5% (8,348 test takers) from the December 2009 LSAT administration. Year-to-date (Jun-Dec), testing volume is 129,414. While this figure is down 10.0% compared to last year, it is the second largest YTD testing volume (second only to last year). http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2011/01/december-lsat-test-takers-drops-165-from-last-year-first-time-test-takers-down-22.html
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 04:59 |
|
Lilosh posted:It's not specifically about legal writing, but, just the other day, I saw this and loved it: This is something I've definitely had to deal with. I have a (non-legal) job with the IRS. The only people who like the IRS are people who work for it. I have confrontational conversations on a daily basis with people who disagree with me, and forcing myself to speak clearly and directly has really helped me. I've found that the two most important words you can say are "I disagree." Get those out there and THEN explain why.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 07:13 |
|
Colorblind Pilot posted:Yeah I applied to law school based on that, thinking it was cool if I got into a T14. Apparently that's not the case at all anymore. So if T14 isn't the cut off anymore, what is? T10? Should I be worried about taking on the full sticker price in debt for HYS? I'm going to guess no, but this thread would nearly have me believe that there will not be a single employed lawyer three years from now.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 11:37 |
|
MEET ME BY DUCKS posted:So if T14 isn't the cut off anymore, what is? T10? HYS, sure. Anything else, hope you're not risk-adverse.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 11:46 |
|
MEET ME BY DUCKS posted:So if T14 isn't the cut off anymore, what is? T10? It's really hard to say. I've thought about it a lot however and if I had to synthesize everything I've learned (and heard via anecdote, so take with much salt!) down into a "guide," I would say: If you get into Yale, Harvard, or Stanford, go if you're pretty sure you want to be a lawyer. If you get into Columbia or Chicago, go if you're pretty sure you want to be a lawyer AND you get a partial or full scholarship, or if you're absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer (almost nobody does so this probably isn't you). If you get into NYU, go if you get a scholarship that pays for at least a third of your education AND if you have almost no undergrad debt AND if you're pretty sure you want to be a lawyer, or if you're absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer. If you get into Michigan, go if you get a whole scholarship OR if you get a very substantial one and you're absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer. I would not go to Georgetown unless I got a full scholarship. I don't know anybody who goes to any of the other T-14 schools, so I won't comment on those. I would not go to any of them without substantial scholarships, however. Furthermore, I personally would not go to ANY non T-14 law school right now. WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOVE WILL BE VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND IS ONE MAN'S OPINION AND CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 13:14 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 06:25 |
|
But it is correct...
|
# ? Jan 24, 2011 14:53 |