Top Law Schools

So...just to summarize what's up ITT:

We have Bearsgrl, a person who has never attended UCI who is not a graduate of law school, is not currently in law school, and is not currently seeking to attend law school advising an individual on the merits of UCI's law school in relation to the legal market as a whole, both inside and outside of California.

Bearsgrl bases her authority for these statements and recommendations the fact that she has lived in California and attended a school there, and has "a resume, of which [she] is very proud" that has on it "firms and businesses". She supports this fact with her acute awareness of building heights in the UCI area. She also knows a person who graduated from Wisconsin and is now working in Nevada.

Furthermore, she refers to the legal market's hierarchy of school prestige as "realms" in which schools relate to each other on some sort of time-space continuum - their current prestige ranking should be measured not on their current level of prestige, but rather how "most people in California" would view the school at some unknown point in the future, assuming we extrapolate everything in that school's favor. Also, almost every geographical claim she has made about California has been proven to be factually incorrect.

romothesavior wrote:

BearsGrl wrote:HA HA HA HA HA Oh my. Because if I lived in Manhattan Beach, I would commute to SD for work? Uhhh ok. *facepalm*

Yeah I mean, how can anyone call Illinois and Ohio both the "Midwest?" It's not like anyone would commute from Dayton to Peoria for work. AMIDOINGITRITE?

Peoria has a nice Christmas lights show. I have a cousin that lives in Peoria. Other than that, uhhh ok.

You do realize that you as a 2L are spending your Saturday talking to folks on TLS though right? Ok. Just checking.

rad lulz wrote:BearsGrl you shoul learn how to use quote because your asinine musings are barely readable already, no need to make it harder for everyone.

No one's making you read them. *facepalm*

BearsGrl wrote:

rad lulz wrote:BearsGrl you shoul learn how to use quote because your asinine musings are barely readable already, no need to make it harder for everyone.

No one's making you read them. *facepalm*

It's not hard to learn how to quote.

Another thread that has derailed into Assburgersgrl making fun of people for posting in the exact same forum she is.

BearsGrl wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

BearsGrl wrote:HA HA HA HA HA Oh my. Because if I lived in Manhattan Beach, I would commute to SD for work? Uhhh ok. *facepalm*

Yeah I mean, how can anyone call Illinois and Ohio both the "Midwest?" It's not like anyone would commute from Dayton to Peoria for work. AMIDOINGITRITE?

Peoria has a nice Christmas lights show. I have a cousin that lives in Peoria. Other than that, uhhh ok.

You do realize that you as a 2L are spending your Saturday talking to folks on TLS though right? Ok. Just checking.

Hahaha nailed it, BearsGrl. Romo is a loser.

Always Credited wrote:So...just to summarize what's up ITT:

We have Bearsgrl, a person who has never attended UCI who is not a graduate of law school, is not currently in law school, and is not currently seeking to attend law school advising an individual on the merits of UCI's law school in relation to the legal market as a whole, both inside and outside of California.

Bearsgrl bases her authority for these statements and recommendations the fact that she has lived in California and attended a school there, and has "a resume, of which [she] is very proud" that has on it "firms and businesses". She supports this fact with her acute awareness of building heights in the UCI area. She also knows a person who graduated from Wisconsin and is now working in Nevada.

Furthermore, she refers to the legal market's hierarchy of school prestige as "realms" in which schools relate to each other on some sort of time-space continuum - their current prestige ranking should be measured not on their current level of prestige, but rather how "most people in California" would view the school at some unknown point in the future, assuming we extrapolate everything in that school's favor. Also, almost every geographical claim she has made about California has been proven to be factually incorrect.

I think this is about right. The tl;dr version is:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Another thread that has derailed into Assburgersgrl making fun of people for posting in the exact same forum she is.

.

BearsGrl wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:
This is non-responsive to the point he was making. His point was the same as the one I had mentioned: biglaw hiring happens in the fall of 2L year. UCI's future rep does not matter after that point to most people trying to snag biglaw. Thus, the current picture of UCI being an unknown commodity, to both students and law firms, makes attending at sticker a risk.

And of course you should hustle. But the entire point was that UCI not being on par with UCLA/USC RIGHT NOW (or within a year from now) is the relevant piece of info in terms of biglaw hiring for those choosing law school to start in the fall.

Since when was the OP talking about Big Law? That was not OP's contention. OP wanted a solid law firm that could get him access to entertainment law. I won't say who I met with, but let's just say that it was an entertainment industry (legal) individual and your access is through associate work with a firm that offers it as a specialty (you can lateral in to the position) or networking. He doesn't need Big Law for that.

I've always contended that right now UCI needs to grow, but he can go after a firm not at OCI. I also know someone in CA that deals with entertainment industry individuals as it concerns family issues. There are multiple ways to get involved. This person didn't go to an LA school.

Entertainment law is mostly a pipe-dream. And if OP is going to have 200K+ in debt, his best bet to pay that off is biglaw. And if OP doesn't get a 2L biglaw SA or something else prestigious, he is going to be scrambling to find ANY legal job for after graduation.

You don't know shit about legal hiring; stop pretending like you do. I don't care if you were a paralegal or whatever for a year or two. (And to address what you might interpret me saying: I'm not saying an 0L can't understand legal hiring. It's possible to understand a lot about legal hiring before going to law school. It's just painfully obvious that you do not by the content of your posts about it.)

(Also, I made it easier for you to quote this.)

romothesavior wrote:

BearsGrl wrote:

rad lulz wrote:BearsGrl you shoul learn how to use quote because your asinine musings are barely readable already, no need to make it harder for everyone.

No one's making you read them. *facepalm*

It's not hard to learn how to quote.

Dude - Thanks for your PM. I will make that my last comment to you ever.
You exposed yourself for the crude person you are with that.
Good thing I won't publicly publish it.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

BearsGrl wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

BearsGrl wrote: I apologize. I did misread.
However, I managed to do just fine finding internships (non-legal) in my business-centered field of work. My school also offered on-campus firm/organization meet and greets where you could hand your resume over and network. If you aren't going to hustle in law school, then don't go.

This is non-responsive to the point he was making. His point was the same as the one I had mentioned: biglaw hiring happens in the fall of 2L year. UCI's future rep does not matter after that point to most people trying to snag biglaw. Thus, the current picture of UCI being an unknown commodity, to both students and law firms, makes attending at sticker a risk.

And of course you should hustle. But the entire point was that UCI not being on par with UCLA/USC RIGHT NOW (or within a year from now) is the relevant piece of info in terms of biglaw hiring for those choosing law school to start in the fall.

Since when was the OP talking about Big Law? That was not OP's contention. OP wanted a solid law firm that could get him access to entertainment law. I won't say who I met with, but let's just say that it was an entertainment industry (legal) individual and your access is through associate work with a firm that offers it as a specialty (you can lateral in to the position) or networking. He doesn't need Big Law for that.

I've always contended that right now UCI needs to grow, but he can go after a firm not at OCI. I also know someone in CA that deals with entertainment industry individuals as it concerns family issues. There are multiple ways to get involved. This person didn't go to an LA school.

Entertainment law is mostly a pipe-dream. And if OP is going to have 200K+ in debt, his best bet to pay that off is biglaw. And if OP doesn't get a 2L biglaw SA or something else prestigious, he is going to be scrambling to find ANY legal job for after graduation.

You don't know shit about legal hiring; stop pretending like you do. I don't care if you were a paralegal or whatever for a year or two. (And to address what you might interpret me saying: I'm not saying an 0L can't understand legal hiring. It's possible to understand a lot about legal hiring before going to law school. It's just painfully obvious that you do not by the content of your posts about it.)

(Also, I made it easier for you to quote this.)

Awesome. Now you can get back to OP's concern as you have responded to me more than enough. Your point has been made. Move back to the OP.

Mal Reynolds wrote:Assburgersgrl

lol

BearsGrl wrote:
Awesome. Now you can get back to OP's concern as you have responded to me more than enough. Your point has been made. Move back to the OP.

Fair enough.

OP- You should consider retaking and reapplying. None of these schools are worth sticker. How much would COA be at Cardozo with the scholarship?

I would also recommend trying to figure out what exactly you want to do in entertainment law and see how viable that career path is. There's a strong chance you might be interested in doing something that has a very low probability of panning out. If you couldn't do "entertainment law" what else would you want to do?

BearsGrl wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

BearsGrl wrote:

rad lulz wrote:BearsGrl you shoul learn how to use quote because your asinine musings are barely readable already, no need to make it harder for everyone.

No one's making you read them. *facepalm*

It's not hard to learn how to quote.

Dude - Thanks for your PM. I will make that my last comment to you ever.
You exposed yourself for the crude person you are with that.
Good thing I won't publicly publish it.

That's like the 4th time you've insulted me (or tried, to be realistic). I don't give a damn if I was crude.

You're an annoying, presumptuous, ignorant, arrogant, stupid, and just downright horrible poster. I don't really care what you think.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:OP- You should consider retaking and reapplying. None of these schools are worth sticker. How much would COA be at Cardozo with the scholarship?

I would also recommend trying to figure out what exactly you want to do in entertainment law and see how viable that career path is. There's a strong chance you might be interested in doing something that has a very low probability of panning out. If you couldn't do "entertainment law" what else would you want to do?

If OP ever bothers to wade through this morass of stupidity, he should know that TITCR.

.

aekea wrote: I would also suggest a petition be sent to USC that they change they're name to the University of Central California. As a school in Central California it's very misleading for them to call themselves the University of Southern California. I mean, why would they even do that?

I laughed out loud, really loud

rad lulz wrote:I wonder if BearsGrl is hot IRL.

I wonder if BearsGrl is this stupid IRL

Reading this I seriously can't tell if BearsGirl is trolling or just fucking retarded.

Also UCI is the best of these options but all are financial suicide at sticker.

Sorry. At this point I'm just going with the conclusion that BearsGrl is a waterman alt. No one can be this ridiculous. I have to believe this, otherwise I will lose all faith in humanity.

Hello everyone!

Though most of the posts seemed to derail into a battle of words with bearsgirl, I just wanted to respond to some of the questions that people asked relating to my post.

I am lucky enough that I can choose whichever law school to go to and graduate without debt thanks to the help of my generous family. I would have liked to have received scholarship money from Pepperdine/Loyola (in Los Angeles)/UC Irvine however I did not receive any, I have emailed all the schools to review my file to see if I can receive any financial assistance, hopefully they will respond positively?! I am very grateful to my parents that they have given me this opportunity and I have talked with them and they have read the posts you have written here on the message board. At this point they would like me to attend law school this coming school year instead of retake/reapply and I would like to attend this fall as well. Overall, I really like UC Irvine and I definitely agree this is a gamble with the school being so new. Also, entertainment law is of a strong interest to me, but I am also interested in public interest and environmental law. Who knows my focus could change in law school. I will need time to think my decision over but at this point UC Irvine truly stands out to me. Honestly when I visited I didn't really have any expectations and was actually thinking I wouldn't like the school or the surrounding area. However, after my visit my perception of the school drastically changed. In the class I sat in on the students were so engaged as was the professor and the class was actually interesting to me. The Irvine area may not have all the bells and whistles of LA, but that is probably best for me since my focus should be studying. All the other schools I've visited and classes I've sat in on all felt the same and students seemed to be constantly on Facebook or checking their email, granted I'm sure this happens everywhere and I've done this too in college, it probably happens at UCI. Who knows I could have just come on a good day and the right class at UCI, but after leaving the campus, and I know this sounds incredibly corny, I became so inspired by my visit that I felt so excited about becoming a lawyer and that Irvine would be the place to make me the best lawyer possible. So, I guess Irvine is definitely the front runner, but I will give my decision more thought and anymore of your advice would be appreciated.

funinthesun393 wrote:I am lucky enough that I can choose whichever law school to go to and graduate without debt thanks to the help of my generous family.

If this is true then take UCI no question. Though the ideal situation is likely to retake and get at least UCLA/USC if your family is footing the bill.

bk187 wrote:

funinthesun393 wrote:I am lucky enough that I can choose whichever law school to go to and graduate without debt thanks to the help of my generous family.

If this is true then take UCI no question. Though the ideal situation is likely to retake and get at least UCLA/USC if your family is footing the bill.

Agreed. If its free because of your parents, UCI is certainly best given your stated goals.

True I would love UCLA/USC. I honestly have not heard back from those schools yet. I definitely applied VERY late in the cycle which probably adds to why I didn't get any scholarship money sigh. If I got in at either of those schools I would be so happy, but surprised! My gut feeling is I don't think I did since I did apply so late but you never know!

funinthesun393 wrote:True I would love UCLA/USC. I honestly have not heard back from those schools yet. I definitely applied VERY late in the cycle which probably adds to why I didn't get any scholarship money sigh. If I got in at either of those schools I would be so happy, but surprised! My gut feeling is I don't think I did since I did apply so late but you never know!

Compare your numbers to the UCLA/USC graphs on http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com and you should have a good idea of your chances (of course discount them compared to the graph since you applied so late).

You can always retake this summer or fall and reapply early next cycle to give yourself a good shot at UCLA/USC. This cycle is not your only chance to get into one of them.