Top Law Schools

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.

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.

But how can you be confident of your sex giving abilities?

InGoodFaith wrote:But how can you be confident of your sex giving abilities?

Gawsh. I dno. Having had sex, but never sex with a law professor, I probably won't know what to do.

Guess I'll just practice.

lisjjen wrote:She is, to be sure, a dinosaur

I been outted!

thelawschoolproject wrote:

lisjjen wrote:She is, to be sure, a dinosaur

I been outted!

This is funny.

And this discussion is ridiculous.

AND to get back to the point of this forum.... Sounds like Rutgers is the way to go. Have fun, let us know what happens.

/forum

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?

OP

This info may or may not help you, but at least this is factual:

You get in-state tuition at UConn after your first year if you decide to be a resident. Therefore, your $ figure for UConn is a little skewed. Tuition in-state is around 20k than you can most likely add another 9k for living expenses and supplies.

Hartford is about 1 1/2 to 2 hours away from NYC and Boston. Cost of rent is between $500-$800 plus or minus a hundred or so depending on where you live. I pay $500 and live right by the law school.

Most of Hartford is well...not good by any means. There is stuff to do downtown though. However, there are really nice surrounding towns where I generally go (i.e. West Hartford).

Most of the connections are within CT, although there is a solid share of students that go into NY and MA for work. Employment everywhere currently stinks, so just keep that in mind.

I suppose the campus is nice, for whatever that is worth, it all goes away once you start school anyways. It's not as nice as it seems.

Most people are genuinely nice. There aren't too may douchebags like some other places. There are really small classes (between 15-50 students).


I can't really offer you any other advise for your other schools except for the fact that Miami is really expensive, but probably gives you the best shot for the most potential money maker - they do have really large class sizes though.

Good Luck!

Thank you mebo! Very very helpful information.

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 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.

mebo28 wrote:
Most of the connections are within CT, although there is a solid share of students that go into NY

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.

killingly: I don't want to work in NY but it sounds like you may have some good job placement stats?

non-profit prophet: I've heard from many many people that you really just can't know how you are going to do (which is partially why I'm so realistic about the need to cut my losses and willing to drop).

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 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.

Don't let these people freak you out. Some of them can be very rude and unhelpful *ahem*, but most have good intentions.

Well I should restate that. I'm talking in a regional school term/mentality. When 10% of your school goes into NY and 10% goes into MA that is a large chunk for a regional school. 70%+ is still right in CT.

Make sure the people who you are talking to are legit. Once that happens, you are smart enough to make your own decisions. The information is out there, just get it from a credible source.

I will also say that the NY % may go down, since starting this year you can no longer sit for both the CT and NY Bar exam together. You can now sit for both the CT and MA together.

A lot of people forget the CT is not only New England, but also part of the Tri-State Area. Many of the firms in CT have firms in NY. Furthermore, many of the CT firms are outside counsel for the big firms in NY.

alright, this is all very helpful information.

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?

obviously, knowing exactly I want to do and how to do it would be ideal, but I was told that a lot of people don't know until they get there and experience classes and everything?

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?

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.

bk187 wrote:

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?

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.

+1

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

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

No, that sounds about right

lisjjen wrote:

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

romothesavior wrote:

lisjjen wrote:

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

And as long as we're being frank, it's crazy to preclude lawschoolproject from having any thoughts about the law school experience or academic success or whatever the hell it is we're talking about. I completely understand the "insider's club" perspective, that if you haven't actually gone through the trials of law school, you couldn't possibly know what it's like. And sometimes this holds true. But not always. I certainly haven't found law school to be this mystical experience. It's different from undergrad in a lot of ways, and it's a lot more difficult, but I doubt it's completely unlike anything else out there.

lawschoolproject over here has experience at the graduate level in a difficult program. Is her program different from law school? Yeah. Do any of us know how different? Probably not. The curve and law school finals are stressful, though I'd probably flip shit all the same if, instead of easy tests curved against intelligent test-takers, I had difficult tests curved against my own lack of knowledge. So to completely preclude her from having opinions on academic success is crazy, even if she's riding that line between worthy comparisons and 0L pontificating.

/white-knight

romothesavior wrote:

lisjjen wrote:

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Please stop ruining Topanga for me.

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.

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.