Pepperdine Student Climate-- lgbt friendly? Forum

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Regulus, grimes, zuck, where do you go to school? Curious if it's outside the top twenty.

It's not that most people go to law school wanting to be fishermen, it's that so many go to law school with only vague goals. A statistically significant amount either A. never wanted to practice full-time or practice at all, B. thought they might want to practice but changed their mind during school and decided not to drop out, or C. had such vague goals or went about their job search in such a hapless way that the average TLS poster would not find themselves in competition with them. The sum of A,B, and C depends on the school. At Harvard, it's probably pretty low. At Pepperdine, in Malibu, the percentage is healthy. The further down the USNEWS ladder the more I would expect apathy, lack of direction, more dummies, for a lack of a better way of putting it.

Saying LST score = chance of becoming a lawyer is just mindless and stupid. No one I know of at my school would agree with that, yet it's very common on TLS. I always assumed that was because most of the posters went to top schools, where the A,B, and C kiddos would be few and far between. I would be interested to hear differing opinions though, especially if they come from those who attend schools outside of the top twenty in USNEWS. I'd also be interested in arguing online, which is why I've already labeled my opposition as mindless and stupid.

[Psingh]

Doubt it's enforced at all.

If you get caught having unmarried sex in the dorms on campus you probably will get in trouble. I know people who went to grad school at Pepperdine and they had to sign something saying they wouldn't have unmarried sex or drink in the dorms on campus.

Not sure about Pepperdine, but BYU's code is definitely enforced.

The issue of having sex, be it gay or straight would be the last thing I'd worry about in law school. I already don't get laid as it is (I also don't have gf or anything), let alone if I have to place in the top 5% of my class or basically not be able to pay back my loans and make my parents and I homeless (they'd have to co-sign for me as I don't have good enough credit myself).

[20141023]

.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Regulus, grimes, zuck, where do you go to school? Curious if it's outside the top twenty.

It's not that most people go to law school wanting to be fishermen, it's that so many go to law school with only vague goals. A statistically significant amount either A. never wanted to practice full-time or practice at all, B. thought they might want to practice but changed their mind during school and decided not to drop out, or C. had such vague goals or went about their job search in such a hapless way that the average TLS poster would not find themselves in competition with them. The sum of A,B, and C depends on the school. At Harvard, it's probably pretty low. At Pepperdine, in Malibu, the percentage is healthy. The further down the USNEWS ladder the more I would expect apathy, lack of direction, more dummies, for a lack of a better way of putting it.

Saying LST score = chance of becoming a lawyer is just mindless and stupid. No one I know of at my school would agree with that, yet it's very common on TLS. I always assumed that was because most of the posters went to top schools, where the A,B, and C kiddos would be few and far between. I would be interested to hear differing opinions though, especially if they come from those who attend schools outside of the top twenty in USNEWS. I'd also be interested in arguing online, which is why I've already labeled my opposition as mindless and stupid.

First of all, I don't think we need to tell you where we go to law school in order to tell you that 46%<50%.

Second, of course we realize that the employment rates from the ABA are only the actual employment outcomes and not the potential placement power of each school; we've stated that all over this site in a variety of threads and discussions. I hate to say this, but you are being "mindless and stupid" if you truly believe that the full-time, long-term, JD-required employment rates at lower-ranked schools are abysmally low because the students there simply didn't want to become lawyers. Such people may account for a small percentage of the graduating class at such schools, but I refuse to believe (without further evidence than your anecdotes from CU) that this is the actual reason for the shitty employment rates. Even Paul Campos, who teaches at your school, has said the same thing.

So in other words, you go to a top school and do not have an informed oppinon about the culture at my school, or 90% of all law schools in the US.

Also, please try to actually respond to what I've said if you are going to play. Reducing my argument to "simply didn't want to be lawyers" is lazy and obviously wrong. Did you just skim the post, Regulus?

[BigZuck]

Ugh, Randy is doing that Randy thing again.

Please stop bro, lets leave this nice little thread in peace.

[20141023]

.

[twenty]

I feel like it's borderline offensive to say that the reason students at T2 schools don't get jobs is because they haphazardly dash through the job search process or really never wanted to become lawyers in the first place. Yeah, so that guy in the Vale considering suicide/those folks on JDU just need to suck it up and try harder?

Okay.

[TheSpanishMain]

I'm guessing the percentage of people who "never wanted to be lawyers" is tiny. I'm sure there are a few people who go with the mistaken belief that a law degree will make them more competitive at some unrelated job, but I can't imagine it's more than a handful.

I THINK what Randy is saying (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that it's probably more likely* that a T2 student would have a lazy, haphazard approach to job searching, partly because if they were inclined to research and understood the current job market they probably would've hestitated about going at all. Look through the Indiana Tech (I realize that's an extreme example) thread. I'm guessing a LOT of those students have no viable plan that makes sense, other than a vague idea that they'll be a lawyer and wear suits and all that. One reason people go to lower ranked schools is because they're under the boomer delusion that a law degree, any law degree, instantly makes you a hot commodity and you'll be choosing between multiple attractive offers. Believing that probably makes job searching seem less urgent. A student at a T2 who is also a TLS regular is probably more likely to be the type of person who does a lot of research, hustles, and job searches early and often.

* "more likely" does not equal "certain."

[timbs4339]

The percentage of "unemployed not seeking," at any school, is almost always less than 2%, whether at Harvard or Hamline. At Pepperdine it is 1.4%. And it is unclear how many of those people went to law school not intending to be lawyers, or were people who got frustrated with the job hunt or had personal issues during law school that made it impossible to work.

There are probably a few people who go to law school intending to return to a non-law job or find a better JD Advantage job, but there's a heavy presumption that a person does not drop tens or hundreds of thousands and three years out of the workforce unless they want to be a lawyer. The little evidence we have suggests that JD Advantage employed make less money and are less satisfied with their jobs than their peers who become lawyers (and that does not include the people who wanted to be lawyers but are also satisfied with their JD Advantage careers).

In other words, unless the law schools can show otherwise with honest data, assume a fact in evidence against that law school.

[The Dark Kite]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

And really, Regulus, BigZuck, and all these other dudes are essentially TLS bullies that think they're doing everyone a service by sitting on their thrones and telling everyone outside the T14 (though, in light of the continuing disparity in the lawyer to law job ratio, outside of the T12 now) to "retake" not taking into consideration the myriad factors that should be assessed when making that kind of determination/providing that kind of advice... simplifying everything to "no jobs, no reason to get an education" but I posit that there is a threshold and once it's passed and people have made the decision to invest, insight should be helpful. And yet... here we always remain with "retake because I have nothing better to say and can't keep my mouth shut." It's always lol-worthy though.

[kwais]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

And really, Regulus, BigZuck, and all these other dudes are essentially TLS bullies that think they're doing everyone a service by sitting on their thrones and telling everyone outside the T14 (though, in light of the continuing disparity in the lawyer to law job ratio, outside of the T12 now) to "retake" not taking into consideration the myriad factors that should be assessed when making that kind of determination/providing that kind of advice... simplifying everything to "no jobs, no reason to get an education" but I posit that there is a threshold and once it's passed and people have made the decision to invest, insight should be helpful. And yet... here we always remain with "retake because I have nothing better to say and can't keep my mouth shut." It's always lol-worthy though.

This is just irresponsible drivel. You take what is objectively great advice and reduce it down to bullying. I have met many students who do not want to retake and the single biggest factor is fear. It is scary to study hard for something, do poorly and then have to start over again. It is a terrible feeling. Many people deal with that terrible feeling by saying "I guess the LSAT is not my thing, so I'll attend X law school and hope to beat the odds." For some, this is right answer, but I would argue that for most people, it is the wrong answer. I took the LSAT once and got a score I was very unhappy with. Then I started reading about people on TLS who made the decision to retake and what it did for their lives. It gave me the confidence to believe that improvement was possible. Indeed much of the advice on this site is delivered in a terse and cynical manner (I'm guilty of this), but that does not make it incorrect. So don't blow it off or provide a hook for those who are feeling scared of retake to hang their hat on. It's just not helpful.

[The Dark Kite]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

And really, Regulus, BigZuck, and all these other dudes are essentially TLS bullies that think they're doing everyone a service by sitting on their thrones and telling everyone outside the T14 (though, in light of the continuing disparity in the lawyer to law job ratio, outside of the T12 now) to "retake" not taking into consideration the myriad factors that should be assessed when making that kind of determination/providing that kind of advice... simplifying everything to "no jobs, no reason to get an education" but I posit that there is a threshold and once it's passed and people have made the decision to invest, insight should be helpful. And yet... here we always remain with "retake because I have nothing better to say and can't keep my mouth shut." It's always lol-worthy though.

This is just irresponsible drivel. You take what is objectively great advice and reduce it down to bullying. I have met many students who do not want to retake and the single biggest factor is fear. It is scary to study hard for something, do poorly and then have to start over again. It is a terrible feeling. Many people deal with that terrible feeling by saying "I guess the LSAT is not my thing, so I'll attend X law school and hope to beat the odds." For some, this is right answer, but I would argue that for most people, it is the wrong answer. I took the LSAT once and got a score I was very unhappy with. Then I started reading about people on TLS who made the decision to retake and what it did for their lives. It gave me the confidence to believe that improvement was possible. Indeed much of the advice on this site is delivered in a terse and cynical manner (I'm guilty of this), but that does not make it incorrect. So don't blow it off or provide a hook for those who are feeling scared of retake to hang their hat on. It's just not helpful.

That's a fantastic story, thank you for sharing. But as you say yourself: "For some, this is [the] right answer, but I would argue that for most people, it is the wrong answer..." -- understanding that it could be the wrong answer makes THAT "irresponsible drivel." That kind of blanket advice is negligent. It's not "objectively great advice" so much as it is dismissive and often times conveyed in an explicitly rude manner.. if the people giving that advice are so concerned with the welfare of the people that they are giving the advice to, I'm sure that they could do it in a manner that would not constitute what I originally referred to as "bullying." Period. Otherwise, it is bullying and it is useless.

[kwais]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

And really, Regulus, BigZuck, and all these other dudes are essentially TLS bullies that think they're doing everyone a service by sitting on their thrones and telling everyone outside the T14 (though, in light of the continuing disparity in the lawyer to law job ratio, outside of the T12 now) to "retake" not taking into consideration the myriad factors that should be assessed when making that kind of determination/providing that kind of advice... simplifying everything to "no jobs, no reason to get an education" but I posit that there is a threshold and once it's passed and people have made the decision to invest, insight should be helpful. And yet... here we always remain with "retake because I have nothing better to say and can't keep my mouth shut." It's always lol-worthy though.

This is just irresponsible drivel. You take what is objectively great advice and reduce it down to bullying. I have met many students who do not want to retake and the single biggest factor is fear. It is scary to study hard for something, do poorly and then have to start over again. It is a terrible feeling. Many people deal with that terrible feeling by saying "I guess the LSAT is not my thing, so I'll attend X law school and hope to beat the odds." For some, this is right answer, but I would argue that for most people, it is the wrong answer. I took the LSAT once and got a score I was very unhappy with. Then I started reading about people on TLS who made the decision to retake and what it did for their lives. It gave me the confidence to believe that improvement was possible. Indeed much of the advice on this site is delivered in a terse and cynical manner (I'm guilty of this), but that does not make it incorrect. So don't blow it off or provide a hook for those who are feeling scared of retake to hang their hat on. It's just not helpful.

That's a fantastic story, thank you for sharing. But as you say yourself: "For some, this is [the] right answer, but I would argue that for most people, it is the wrong answer..." -- understanding that it could be the wrong answer makes THAT "irresponsible drivel." That kind of blanket advice is negligent. It's not "objectively great advice" so much as it is dismissive and often times conveyed in an explicitly rude manner.. if the people giving that advice are so concerned with the welfare of the people that they are giving the advice to, I'm sure that they could do it in a manner that would not constitute what I originally referred to as "bullying." Period. Otherwise, it is bullying and it is useless.

Are you serious dude? You seem so mad about people telling others to err on the side of retaking. How could it ever be negligent to take another stab at the LSAT? I can certainly see why it would be negligent to tell someone not to (potentially costing them tens of thousands of dollars and reduced chances at achieving success in their desired profession). You must realize that you sound like you have a massive chip on your shoulder about this issue for some reason. And again, you have responded to the underlying argument by attacking the people who convey it and the way it is conveyed. This is called ad hominem and is not a reasonable way to go about disagreeing with a position. If I concede that the message is delivered in a poor manner, can you take one more shot at telling me why "retake" is bad advice for anyone?

[timbs4339]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

And really, Regulus, BigZuck, and all these other dudes are essentially TLS bullies that think they're doing everyone a service by sitting on their thrones and telling everyone outside the T14 (though, in light of the continuing disparity in the lawyer to law job ratio, outside of the T12 now) to "retake" not taking into consideration the myriad factors that should be assessed when making that kind of determination/providing that kind of advice... simplifying everything to "no jobs, no reason to get an education" but I posit that there is a threshold and once it's passed and people have made the decision to invest, insight should be helpful. And yet... here we always remain with "retake because I have nothing better to say and can't keep my mouth shut." It's always lol-worthy though.

This is just irresponsible drivel. You take what is objectively great advice and reduce it down to bullying. I have met many students who do not want to retake and the single biggest factor is fear. It is scary to study hard for something, do poorly and then have to start over again. It is a terrible feeling. Many people deal with that terrible feeling by saying "I guess the LSAT is not my thing, so I'll attend X law school and hope to beat the odds." For some, this is right answer, but I would argue that for most people, it is the wrong answer. I took the LSAT once and got a score I was very unhappy with. Then I started reading about people on TLS who made the decision to retake and what it did for their lives. It gave me the confidence to believe that improvement was possible. Indeed much of the advice on this site is delivered in a terse and cynical manner (I'm guilty of this), but that does not make it incorrect. So don't blow it off or provide a hook for those who are feeling scared of retake to hang their hat on. It's just not helpful.

That's a fantastic story, thank you for sharing. But as you say yourself: "For some, this is [the] right answer, but I would argue that for most people, it is the wrong answer..." -- understanding that it could be the wrong answer makes THAT "irresponsible drivel." That kind of blanket advice is negligent. It's not "objectively great advice" so much as it is dismissive and often times conveyed in an explicitly rude manner.. if the people giving that advice are so concerned with the welfare of the people that they are giving the advice to, I'm sure that they could do it in a manner that would not constitute what I originally referred to as "bullying." Period. Otherwise, it is bullying and it is useless.

When people provide a coherent, good reason for not retaking or why a retake would not be helpful, then the advice changes to reflect that. But for most people, the reason is something along the lines of "I don't want to retake because the LSAT is hard. I don't want to retake because my parents want me to go to law school now. I don't want to retake because I want to get to law school right now and make 160K and wear a suit to work. I don't want to retake because I want to tell people that I got into law school and feel like I am doing something with my life."

Think of it this way. A guy comes to you and says "I want to have sex, am not going to wear a condom, and don't want to get someone pregnant or an STD. Should I do it?" It's totally possible that person might possibly have a serious latex allergy and wearing a condom will kill them. It's totally possible the person is sterile and he and his partner both have a clean bill of health, so there's no point to wearing a condom. But it's completely reasonable to assume that they engaging in risky behavior for dumber, more common reasons, and until they tell you otherwise you have to assume that's the case.

[The Dark Kite]

Are you serious dude? You seem so mad about people telling others to err on the side of retaking. How could it ever be negligent to take another stab at the LSAT? I can certainly see why it would be negligent to tell someone not to (potentially costing them tens of thousands of dollars and reduced chances at achieving success in their desired profession). You must realize that you sound like you have a massive chip on your shoulder about this issue for some reason. And again, you have responded to the underlying argument by attacking the people who convey it and the way it is conveyed. This is called ad hominem and is not a reasonable way to go about disagreeing with a position. If I concede that the message is delivered in a poor manner, can you take one more shot at telling me why "retake" is bad advice for anyone?

Fine, I guess I do have a chip on my shoulder and it is personal. So with that in mind, go ahead. Carry on.

[kwais]

Are you serious dude? You seem so mad about people telling others to err on the side of retaking. How could it ever be negligent to take another stab at the LSAT? I can certainly see why it would be negligent to tell someone not to (potentially costing them tens of thousands of dollars and reduced chances at achieving success in their desired profession). You must realize that you sound like you have a massive chip on your shoulder about this issue for some reason. And again, you have responded to the underlying argument by attacking the people who convey it and the way it is conveyed. This is called ad hominem and is not a reasonable way to go about disagreeing with a position. If I concede that the message is delivered in a poor manner, can you take one more shot at telling me why "retake" is bad advice for anyone?

Fine, I guess I do have a chip on my shoulder and it is personal. So with that in mind, go ahead. Carry on.

Sorry to hear that. good luck to you.

[yomisterd]

OP, a friend of mine was very open about his gayness (is that even a word?) on his application and was admitted, got scholarship, and has enjoyed his time so far. Hope that helps.

[BigZuck]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

And really, Regulus, BigZuck, and all these other dudes are essentially TLS bullies that think they're doing everyone a service by sitting on their thrones and telling everyone outside the T14 (though, in light of the continuing disparity in the lawyer to law job ratio, outside of the T12 now) to "retake" not taking into consideration the myriad factors that should be assessed when making that kind of determination/providing that kind of advice... simplifying everything to "no jobs, no reason to get an education" but I posit that there is a threshold and once it's passed and people have made the decision to invest, insight should be helpful. And yet... here we always remain with "retake because I have nothing better to say and can't keep my mouth shut." It's always lol-worthy though.

3 things:
1. You personally need to retake the LSAT. You proposed the idea of going to a school to transfer up. That's a really bad idea, the chances of doing that are significantly worse than scoring a few more points higher on a learnable standardized test.

2. I don't go to a T14. On numerous occasions I have relayed my personal story with taking the LSAT multiple times and how much that drastically improved my law school lot. Suffice it to say that I'm one of those TTT->T14 (if I had chosen to go to a T14) success stories and I have gone out of my way to give people advice so they too can be a success story and not a statistic.

3. You're attacking some of the most helpful, hilarious, and handsome posters on this site by specifically calling them out. I think that's silly. Repeatedly giving excellent advice and doing so in a terse, to the point manner does not equal bullying. Just because you're scared of the LSAT doesn't mean you should lash out in such a childish manner.

As TI Malice has said, we aren't elitists, we're jobists. We want everyone to have the job that they want, and we don't want them to be buried by debt. Get a grip bro.

[TheSpanishMain]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

Solid rebuttal, bro.

Also, way to mock someone's religious beliefs, which for many people is a critical aspect of their identity and how they understand the moral universe, and then accuse people of bullying because they want you to retake the LSAT, which is a standardized test that takes about four hours.

[kalvano]

Law school isn't about "getting an education," it's a trade school. The point is to ply your trade afterwards. Preparing to do that as best you can involves maximizing your chances of being able to do so. That's why people encourage others to retake, as LSAT directly influences your chances of being able to practice law. It's not "bullying" to encourage people to retake and improve their chances. Perhaps it's done in a somewhat abrupt manner at times, but still...the amount of people looking for validation of a poor choice as opposed to advice on what to do is still amazing to me.

People like the OP are focusing on an aspect of law school that, while not totally irrelevant, should be far, far down the list of factors being considered.

[jbagelboy]

I already don't get laid as it is

This was one of the saddest things I've read on TLS ;/

[twenty]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

And really, Regulus, BigZuck, and all these other dudes are essentially TLS bullies that think they're doing everyone a service by sitting on their thrones and telling everyone outside the T14 (though, in light of the continuing disparity in the lawyer to law job ratio, outside of the T12 now) to "retake" not taking into consideration the myriad factors that should be assessed when making that kind of determination/providing that kind of advice... simplifying everything to "no jobs, no reason to get an education" but I posit that there is a threshold and once it's passed and people have made the decision to invest, insight should be helpful. And yet... here we always remain with "retake because I have nothing better to say and can't keep my mouth shut." It's always lol-worthy though.

Speaking of which, are you planning on retaking your 165 in Feb? We both know you were really hoping for a 170+ score in December -- why'd you bail?

[timbs4339]

Some examples of people clearly and rationally assessing the myriad factors of their decision before they decide to "do law school YOLO get paid bitch @TheGoodWife."

https://twitter.com/LawLemmings

[The Dark Kite]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

Solid rebuttal, bro.

Also, way to mock someone's religious beliefs, which for many people is a critical aspect of their identity and how they understand the moral universe, and then accuse people of bullying because they want you to retake the LSAT, which is a standardized test that takes about four hours.

Rebuttal? To what? It's funny. How is it not religion when the scripture is what inspires the hate mongering? Calm down.

Law school isn't about "getting an education," it's a trade school. The point is to ply your trade afterwards. Preparing to do that as best you can involves maximizing your chances of being able to do so. That's why people encourage others to retake, as LSAT directly influences your chances of being able to practice law. It's not "bullying" to encourage people to retake and improve their chances. Perhaps it's done in a somewhat abrupt manner at times, but still...the amount of people looking for validation of a poor choice as opposed to advice on what to do is still amazing to me.

People like the OP are focusing on an aspect of law school that, while not totally irrelevant, should be far, far down the list of factors being considered.

That's fair, with the price of tuition, I agree that it should be treated as such. It's just unfortunate. Because I personally am interested in the scholarly value of a legal education AS WELL AS job prospects. I wouldn't take one without the other and I also wouldn't accept that it's impossible to do well even in this economy at a school that isn't T14. The "T14 or bust" mentality is fine in theory but it slaps so many people in the face that are currently attending other schools... I'm not here to advocate for the existence of Cooley but it's really inconsiderate to talk about certain T1's the way you all do without thinking of the other TLS'ers who are currently at those schools. It's like you found some valuable information regarding the job market and post-grad employment prospects and you wield it in front of everyone's faces as if they're blind to it and you're showing them the light or as if you know everything there is to know about the candidate and about their particular motives. Though again, I conceded that if optimal job prospects are the motive (and at these tuition prices they should be for most) then it is absolutely in your best interest to retake.

3 things:
1. You personally need to retake the LSAT. You proposed the idea of going to a school to transfer up. That's a really bad idea, the chances of doing that are significantly worse than scoring a few more points higher on a learnable standardized test.

2. I don't go to a T14. On numerous occasions I have relayed my personal story with taking the LSAT multiple times and how much that drastically improved my law school lot. Suffice it to say that I'm one of those TTT->T14 (if I had chosen to go to a T14) success stories and I have gone out of my way to give people advice so they too can be a success story and not a statistic.

3. You're attacking some of the most helpful, hilarious, and handsome posters on this site by specifically calling them out. I think that's silly. Repeatedly giving excellent advice and doing so in a terse, to the point manner does not equal bullying. Just because you're scared of the LSAT doesn't mean you should lash out in such a childish manner.

As TI Malice has said, we aren't elitists, we're jobists. We want everyone to have the job that they want, and we don't want them to be buried by debt. Get a grip bro.

No comment, Zuck. You know everything, so far be it from me to attempt to inform you.

[The Dark Kite]

It's not the religion that's intolerant, it's the people. And this isn't the place for that discussion.

I LOL'd

And really, Regulus, BigZuck, and all these other dudes are essentially TLS bullies that think they're doing everyone a service by sitting on their thrones and telling everyone outside the T14 (though, in light of the continuing disparity in the lawyer to law job ratio, outside of the T12 now) to "retake" not taking into consideration the myriad factors that should be assessed when making that kind of determination/providing that kind of advice... simplifying everything to "no jobs, no reason to get an education" but I posit that there is a threshold and once it's passed and people have made the decision to invest, insight should be helpful. And yet... here we always remain with "retake because I have nothing better to say and can't keep my mouth shut." It's always lol-worthy though.

Speaking of which, are you planning on retaking your 165 in Feb? We both know you were really hoping for a 170+ score in December -- why'd you bail?

Ha. I'm quite content with my LSAT score, thank you though.