beachbum wrote:You don't think your peers haven't already thought of that? They're fucking brilliant, if you hadn't heard.
Dammit. You're right. I'll just have to give the better sex.
beachbum wrote:You don't think your peers haven't already thought of that? They're fucking brilliant, if you hadn't heard.
But how can you be confident of your sex giving abilities?thelawschoolproject wrote:beachbum wrote:You don't think your peers haven't already thought of that? They're fucking brilliant, if you hadn't heard.
Dammit. You're right. I'll just have to give the better sex.
Gawsh. I dno. Having had sex, but never sex with a law professor, I probably won't know what to do.InGoodFaith wrote:But how can you be confident of your sex giving abilities?
I been outted!lisjjen wrote:She is, to be sure, a dinosaur
This is funny.thelawschoolproject wrote:I been outted!lisjjen wrote:She is, to be sure, a dinosaur
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
I think that will be school-specific. At UT everyone seems to work their ass off. Also, it should be pointed out that doing all the "monotonous work" is neither necessary nor sufficient for the top 10%. I busted my ass and did well, many people worked as hard or harder and did not. My roommate busted his ass when finals got close and did even better than I did. Hard to say what causes some people to do well and others to do poorly.curiousnole wrote:Thank you very much for your very helpful insight iowalum, your input has been well noted. I am leaning that way so far.
The above posters kind of freaked me out. Pre-law advisors, lawyers, etc had told me that there was no rush to choose a concentration before law school and that most people just aren't ready for the monotonous work and endless reading (which I definitely won't mind) and that's what shocks the most people? is this not the case?
I'm passing up a full ride to Uconn because I've learned that really isn't true. I've gathered that it is very difficult to get to NY.mebo28 wrote:
Most of the connections are within CT, although there is a solid share of students that go into NY
I believe these are a few among many things. Though I am a 0L so several of those above don't take anything I have to say to be credited, but my friends that are currently 2/3L's and graduates have told me that the difficulty lies in how different it is from our normal (UG) curriculum structure. Not only is it a lot of monotonous reading like you said, but it is completely based on the curve and therefore very competitive. But, just like anything, if you are willing to dedicate all of your time to making sure you meet your goal of top 20% then you have a chance to succeed. I'm sure the fact that you enjoy reading will help but you can't base your confidence solely on that - I'm sure there will be a learning curve and above all you will have to learn how to crush the test. If it makes you feel better, do some research on LEWS and 0L books.curiousnole wrote:Thank you very much for your very helpful insight iowalum, your input has been well noted. I am leaning that way so far.
The above posters kind of freaked me out. Pre-law advisors, lawyers, etc had told me that there was no rush to choose a concentration before law school and that most people just aren't ready for the monotonous work and endless reading (which I definitely won't mind) and that's what shocks the most people? is this not the case?
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
Have an idea what being a lawyer is actually like, but you don't need to know what type of law you want. People routinely change their mind throughout law school and you won't know whether you want to work in a given area until you've tried it.curiousnole wrote:Should I really know exactly what type of law I want to do before I even decide on a law school as it seemed was applied from some prior posters?
+1bk187 wrote:Have an idea what being a lawyer is actually like, but you don't need to know what type of law you want. People routinely change their mind throughout law school and you won't know whether you want to work in a given area until you've tried it.curiousnole wrote:Should I really know exactly what type of law I want to do before I even decide on a law school as it seemed was applied from some prior posters?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
No, that sounds about rightcuriousnole wrote:the lawyers I've talked with and visited with said 95% of the time it's just boring paperwork and research. I'm sure some tlsers will have some opinion of how what these lawyers say is not representative of what lawyers do, so let me have it
I know this is the "PC" thing to think, but I don't buy it. Yeah, you're taking a couple hundred people with similar test scores, GPAs, credentials, backgrounds, etc. and throwing them into a forced curve, which is going to result in winners and losers. Most people at T20s are probably pretty smart. But "everybody is brilliant?" Maybe at Harvard. Have you ever listened to your classmates talk in class? A lot of it is unintelligible drivel.lisjjen wrote:I wish I could be there to watch you take your first law school exam. It's not that you aren't brilliant. It's that everybody at a good law school is. Once you get in the top 20, there are no "pretty smart" people there. Everybody is brilliant. Something that stuck with me was the statement "you have no idea how smart your peers are" and "even the dumbasses are brilliant." True story.thelawschoolproject wrote: This is just absurd. Not having taking one specific type of test in no way counteracts all of the research on the psychological affects of students on academic success. Disagree if you will, but your argument isn't the most logically sound.
A lot of it is, but it depends a lot on the firm, the practice area, the attorneys around you, the clients, the level or work, etc. It's not like "the law" is just some universal experience for everybody. What one lawyer might find to be painfully boring (say tax work) gets other people really excited (looking at you Antilles Haven). Or if you are a trial lawyer, you might get some pretty cool highs in the courtroom once in a while, but there are going to be days that are painfully tedious and boring. It really varies.curiousnole wrote:the lawyers I've talked with and visited with said 95% of the time it's just boring paperwork and research. I'm sure some tlsers will have some opinion of how what these lawyers say is not representative of what lawyers do, so let me have it
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
Big +1 to all of this. The idea that everyone is brilliant all the time doesn't really hold much water. Attending a T14 is only proof that you did well in undergrad (which means very different things if we're looking across majors and across schools) and that you learned how to do well on the LSAT. And that's it, really. It doesn't mean that you're brilliant (see beachbum), or that your skills are compatible with the study of law.romothesavior wrote:I know this is the "PC" thing to think, but I don't buy it. Yeah, you're taking a couple hundred people with similar test scores, GPAs, credentials, backgrounds, etc. and throwing them into a forced curve, which is going to result in winners and losers. Most people at T20s are probably pretty smart. But "everybody is brilliant?" Maybe at Harvard. Have you ever listened to your classmates talk in class? A lot of it is unintelligible drivel.lisjjen wrote:I wish I could be there to watch you take your first law school exam. It's not that you aren't brilliant. It's that everybody at a good law school is. Once you get in the top 20, there are no "pretty smart" people there. Everybody is brilliant. Something that stuck with me was the statement "you have no idea how smart your peers are" and "even the dumbasses are brilliant." True story.thelawschoolproject wrote: This is just absurd. Not having taking one specific type of test in no way counteracts all of the research on the psychological affects of students on academic success. Disagree if you will, but your argument isn't the most logically sound.
I'm sorry, but when I know people who put in next to zero effort all semester, study for a week or two for the exam and finish in the top 1/3 on exam day, it makes me wonder what the people on the bottom of the curve are doing. I don't want to knock my classmates in any way, because most of them are very smart, and some of them are definitely brilliant. But not all of them are.
Relativity is a hell of a thing. I guess we could wallow in a semantic debate about what it means to be "brilliant," but nobody, least of all myself, is interested in that. I guess you caught me using gross exaggeration and needless hyperbole to try and sound important. Though I may be spouting like an ass to God and the internet, it is highly preferable to finishing this appellate brief.romothesavior wrote:I know this is the "PC" thing to think, but I don't buy it. Yeah, you're taking a couple hundred people with similar test scores, GPAs, credentials, backgrounds, etc. and throwing them into a forced curve, which is going to result in winners and losers. Most people at T20s are probably pretty smart. But "everybody is brilliant?" Maybe at Harvard. Have you ever listened to your classmates talk in class? A lot of it is unintelligible drivel.lisjjen wrote:I wish I could be there to watch you take your first law school exam. It's not that you aren't brilliant. It's that everybody at a good law school is. Once you get in the top 20, there are no "pretty smart" people there. Everybody is brilliant. Something that stuck with me was the statement "you have no idea how smart your peers are" and "even the dumbasses are brilliant." True story.thelawschoolproject wrote: This is just absurd. Not having taking one specific type of test in no way counteracts all of the research on the psychological affects of students on academic success. Disagree if you will, but your argument isn't the most logically sound.
I'm sorry, but when I know people who put in next to zero effort all semester, study for a week or two for the exam and finish in the top 1/3 on exam day, it makes me wonder what the people on the bottom of the curve are doing. I don't want to knock my classmates in any way, because most of them are very smart, and some of them are definitely brilliant. But not all of them are.
Please stop ruining Topanga for me.thelawschoolproject wrote:beachbum wrote:You don't think your peers haven't already thought of that? They're fucking brilliant, if you hadn't heard.
Dammit. You're right. I'll just have to give the better sex.
Ha, understandable then. I actually had originally said that you were "overstating your case" or something like that. I agree with what you're getting at though; most people in a given law school class are all on the same general playing field when you walk in the door. We're definitely on the same side of this discussion. I mean, why should I walk in confident in my 3.7/168 when that's umm... the median for my school? What does anyone entering law school have to be confident about? Look around your peers and see how qualified many of them are. If anything, I preferred letting the fear of unemployment/median pwnage motivate me, and it worked out well. Some of the very top people in my law school class were genuinely worried about doing well as a 1L.lisjjen wrote:Relativity is a hell of a thing. I guess we could wallow in a semantic debate about what it means to be "brilliant," but nobody, least of all myself, is interested in that. I guess you caught me using gross exaggeration and needless hyperbole to try and sound important. Though I may be spouting like an ass to God and the internet, it is highly preferable to finishing this appellate brief.
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login