The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15415
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby sublime » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:28 am

..

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11952
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Rigo » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:25 pm

They should have picked a better example of a financially prudent student than someone who is paying $20-25k annually in tuition for Roger Williams (median 148 LSAT).

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15415
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby sublime » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:37 pm

..

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9647
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:47 pm

sublime wrote:
Dirigo wrote:They should have picked a better example of a financially prudent student than someone who is paying $20-25k annually in tuition for Roger Williams (median 148 LSAT).



Yea, and talking about students fighting back against five figure debt was irritating.


"Five figure," aaahahhh. In my dreams.

User avatar
UnderTheLaw
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby UnderTheLaw » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:59 pm

"In the new topsy-turvy law school world, students are increasingly in control as nearly all of the 204 accredited law schools battle for the students with the best academic credentials."

Interesting how there are more accredited law schools than there are accredited medical schools. I wonder about the implications of this fact.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15415
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby sublime » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:01 pm

..

User avatar
UnderTheLaw
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby UnderTheLaw » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:27 pm

I think in the near future, or at least I hope in the near future, a dramatic revamp will occur. Too many law students are entering the market without the full story and only to realize they were duped.

It's practically robbery for certain naive individuals. I believe there is a mentality amongst lay people that going to law school is "guaranteed success." For outsiders, future law students, and even the delusional 1L, it's a real disservice to oneself to not fully understand the larger picture; i.e. the market, the economy.

The proportion of 3L's leaving law school unemployed is startling.

I think there needs to be a better connect between ones undergraduate studies and the intention of attending law school. There should never be a set curriculum, but there needs to be more thoughtful individuals.

Jchance
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:17 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Jchance » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:47 pm

This explains CA bar's lowest pass rate in 10 years

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/n ... l?page=all

LOL @ legal experts puzzed by this stats.
Last edited by Jchance on Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Kimikho » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:49 pm

UnderTheLaw wrote:
I think there needs to be a better connect between ones undergraduate studies and the intention of attending law school. There should never be a set curriculum, but there needs to be more thoughtful individuals.


Explain your thoughts here.

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11952
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Rigo » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:54 pm

I think work experience should be stressed after undergrad. I think the unfortunate CW in undergrad/life is to go straight to law school because "once you stop school, it's soooo hard to go back."

User avatar
mt2165
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby mt2165 » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:56 pm

I think there does need to be UG requirements, as well as a complete overhaul of ABA oversight of law school admissions-whatever to better insure accountability of law schools and prudence on behalf of students-basically weed em out.

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Kimikho » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:57 pm

Seriously though, people wanting UG requirements: what types of requirements are you thinking of?

User avatar
nothingtosee
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby nothingtosee » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:58 pm

mt2165 wrote:I think there does need to be UG requirements, as well as a complete overhaul of ABA oversight of law school admissions-whatever to better insure accountability of law schools and prudence on behalf of students-basically weed em out.


What would the UG requirements be? Writing? Math, physics, econ majors do the best on the lsat (+ philosophy). Logic stuff? Law stuff?

ABA isn't going to change because the accreditation committee is stocked with TTT deans (too lazy to google if this is true). People don't pay for undergrad to be weeded out, so incentive there is for high gpas and happy students.

Med schools need lower enrollment because residencies. Law schools don't because they don't care about unemployed grads.

User avatar
mt2165
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby mt2165 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:05 am

nothingtosee wrote:
mt2165 wrote:I think there does need to be UG requirements, as well as a complete overhaul of ABA oversight of law school admissions-whatever to better insure accountability of law schools and prudence on behalf of students-basically weed em out.


What would the UG requirements be? Writing? Math, physics, econ majors do the best on the lsat (+ philosophy). Logic stuff? Law stuff?

ABA isn't going to change because the accreditation committee is stocked with TTT deans (too lazy to google if this is true). People don't pay for undergrad to be weeded out, so incentive there is for high gpas and happy students.

Med schools need lower enrollment because residencies. Law schools don't because they don't care about unemployed grads.


Sure-some writing, some logic, reading intensive stuff idk. And yeah that's exactly the problem, I'm not saying its plausible I'm just saying what I think needs to be done. And I get the med school rationale but the fact of the matter is in the same sense that med schools don't want kids not matching-i.e. lost investment-law schools shouldn't send kids out in an (relatively) avoidably shitty law industry. And in the sense that it looks good if UG's can get kids into med schools, then UG's would have the incentive to get kids into law school-if not just anybody on a whim could get accepted and ruin their financial integrity in the process. This has to start with the ABA cause law schools aren't going to do anything

User avatar
nothingtosee
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby nothingtosee » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:08 am

mt2165 wrote:
nothingtosee wrote:
mt2165 wrote:I think there does need to be UG requirements, as well as a complete overhaul of ABA oversight of law school admissions-whatever to better insure accountability of law schools and prudence on behalf of students-basically weed em out.


What would the UG requirements be? Writing? Math, physics, econ majors do the best on the lsat (+ philosophy). Logic stuff? Law stuff?

ABA isn't going to change because the accreditation committee is stocked with TTT deans (too lazy to google if this is true). People don't pay for undergrad to be weeded out, so incentive there is for high gpas and happy students.

Med schools need lower enrollment because residencies. Law schools don't because they don't care about unemployed grads.


Sure-some writing, some logic, reading intensive stuff idk. And yeah that's exactly the problem, I'm not saying its plausible I'm just saying what I think needs to be done. And I get the med school rationale but the fact of the matter is in the same sense that med schools don't want kids not matching-i.e. lost investment-law schools shouldn't send kids out in an (relatively) avoidably shitty law industry. And in the sense that it looks good if UG's can get kids into med schools, then UG's would have the incentive to get kids into law school-if not just anybody on a whim could get accepted and ruin their financial integrity in the process. This has to start with someone else cause the ABA and law schools aren't going to do anything

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Kimikho » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:10 am

mt2165 wrote:
nothingtosee wrote:
mt2165 wrote:I think there does need to be UG requirements, as well as a complete overhaul of ABA oversight of law school admissions-whatever to better insure accountability of law schools and prudence on behalf of students-basically weed em out.


What would the UG requirements be? Writing? Math, physics, econ majors do the best on the lsat (+ philosophy). Logic stuff? Law stuff?

ABA isn't going to change because the accreditation committee is stocked with TTT deans (too lazy to google if this is true). People don't pay for undergrad to be weeded out, so incentive there is for high gpas and happy students.

Med schools need lower enrollment because residencies. Law schools don't because they don't care about unemployed grads.


Sure-some writing, some logic, reading intensive stuff idk. And yeah that's exactly the problem, I'm not saying its plausible I'm just saying what I think needs to be done. And I get the med school rationale but the fact of the matter is in the same sense that med schools don't want kids not matching-i.e. lost investment-law schools shouldn't send kids out in an (relatively) avoidably shitty law industry. And in the sense that it looks good if UG's can get kids into med schools, then UG's would have the incentive to get kids into law school-if not just anybody on a whim could get accepted and ruin their financial integrity in the process. This has to start with the ABA cause law schools aren't going to do anything


while I wish I had taken maybe like, more than one writing-intensive class (outside of senior thesis) in UG, I don't think it would be a good idea to tell people "take logic" and "learn to read." That's what law school is for. And the reading in law school is so different from anything else that I don't think there would be any benefit.

If I'd had any more requirements I wouldn't have been able to do all the math I did in ug, and I think I got a lot more benefit out of that than a logic class. And having people with different education backgrounds has been nice.

User avatar
mt2165
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby mt2165 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:21 am

Kimikho wrote:
mt2165 wrote:
nothingtosee wrote:
mt2165 wrote:I think there does need to be UG requirements, as well as a complete overhaul of ABA oversight of law school admissions-whatever to better insure accountability of law schools and prudence on behalf of students-basically weed em out.


What would the UG requirements be? Writing? Math, physics, econ majors do the best on the lsat (+ philosophy). Logic stuff? Law stuff?

ABA isn't going to change because the accreditation committee is stocked with TTT deans (too lazy to google if this is true). People don't pay for undergrad to be weeded out, so incentive there is for high gpas and happy students.

Med schools need lower enrollment because residencies. Law schools don't because they don't care about unemployed grads.


Sure-some writing, some logic, reading intensive stuff idk. And yeah that's exactly the problem, I'm not saying its plausible I'm just saying what I think needs to be done. And I get the med school rationale but the fact of the matter is in the same sense that med schools don't want kids not matching-i.e. lost investment-law schools shouldn't send kids out in an (relatively) avoidably shitty law industry. And in the sense that it looks good if UG's can get kids into med schools, then UG's would have the incentive to get kids into law school-if not just anybody on a whim could get accepted and ruin their financial integrity in the process. This has to start with the ABA cause law schools aren't going to do anything


while I wish I had taken maybe like, more than one writing-intensive class (outside of senior thesis) in UG, I don't think it would be a good idea to tell people "take logic" and "learn to read." That's what law school is for. And the reading in law school is so different from anything else that I don't think there would be any benefit.

If I'd had any more requirements I wouldn't have been able to do all the math I did in ug, and I think I got a lot more benefit out of that than a logic class. And having people with different education backgrounds has been nice.


Understood, I'm not really speaking on the substantive benefits of those classes, I'm just talking about something to make the process more tenuous, whatever that looks like. And while law school I think facilitates leaps and bounds in your critical thinking and processing, I think there is something to gain from some classes in critical reading, writing, research, etc. And yeah I think someone else has to be the sparkplug but ideally the ABA should step in since they are the administrative body-or LSAC or someone idk

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Kimikho » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:23 am

mt2165 wrote:
Understood, I'm not really speaking on the substantive benefits of those classes, I'm just talking about something to make the process more tenuous, whatever that looks like. And while law school I think facilitates leaps and bounds in your critical thinking and processing, I think there is something to gain from some classes in critical reading, writing, research, etc.


A required LSAT of 145 would be nice. No GPA reqs because of differences in schools etc.

That sounds low but one time I found a 3.99/149 on LSN going to berkeley and based on other stuff I'm like 99% sure it was real.

User avatar
mt2165
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby mt2165 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:35 am

Kimikho wrote:
mt2165 wrote:
Understood, I'm not really speaking on the substantive benefits of those classes, I'm just talking about something to make the process more tenuous, whatever that looks like. And while law school I think facilitates leaps and bounds in your critical thinking and processing, I think there is something to gain from some classes in critical reading, writing, research, etc.


A required LSAT of 145 would be nice. No GPA reqs because of differences in schools etc.

That sounds low but one time I found a 3.99/149 on LSN going to berkeley and based on other stuff I'm like 99% sure it was real.


Wow. That would work, although I'd be hesitant assigning cutoffs. Kind of infringes on LS autonomy, but it's a solid solution. I like the idea more of limiting the number of schools, but it might be more practical to just a cutoff. Either way there's basically the same effect. I just think there's still a lot of people above 145 who don't need to be in LS.

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Kimikho » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:42 am

mt2165 wrote:
Kimikho wrote:
mt2165 wrote:
Understood, I'm not really speaking on the substantive benefits of those classes, I'm just talking about something to make the process more tenuous, whatever that looks like. And while law school I think facilitates leaps and bounds in your critical thinking and processing, I think there is something to gain from some classes in critical reading, writing, research, etc.


A required LSAT of 145 would be nice. No GPA reqs because of differences in schools etc.

That sounds low but one time I found a 3.99/149 on LSN going to berkeley and based on other stuff I'm like 99% sure it was real.


Wow. That would work, although I'd be hesitant assigning cutoffs. Kind of infringes on LS autonomy, but it's a solid solution. I like the idea more of limiting the number of schools, but it might be more practical to just a cutoff. Either way there's basically the same effect. I just think there's still a lot of people above 145 who don't need to be in LS.


For sure, I just wouldn't want to stop people from going to LS solely because of their LSAT score when LSAT is known to be correlated with a whole bunch of shitty things like race and gender.

I'd be willing to do a 155 or maybe 160 if there was a good appeals process or good alternative to the lsat but there isn't.

making schools give out the loans instead of the government would also do this well, though. At least it would make the schools care about employment.

User avatar
DiniMae
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby DiniMae » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:06 am

Dirigo wrote:I think work experience should be stressed after undergrad. I think the unfortunate CW in undergrad/life is to go straight to law school because "once you stop school, it's soooo hard to go back."


Similar to MBA or MA programs that encourage/require work experience?

User avatar
mt2165
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby mt2165 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:57 am

DiniMae wrote:
Dirigo wrote:I think work experience should be stressed after undergrad. I think the unfortunate CW in undergrad/life is to go straight to law school because "once you stop school, it's soooo hard to go back."


Similar to MBA or MA programs that encourage/require work experience?


yeah that would be a good idea, I think precisely part of the problem is that k-jd's dont know what to do with their life, thus LS. It's convenient and comforting to know you have a "career/plan" laid out in front of you, at the expense of experience, maturity, and consideration. I think it might also be interesting to require a quasi-clinical commitment where applicants have to spend a certain amount of time shadowing/volunteering/working in a legal setting, like they have with PA school.

User avatar
mist4bison
Posts: 1549
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:17 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby mist4bison » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:15 pm

.
Last edited by mist4bison on Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15511
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:57 pm

UnderTheLaw wrote:I think in the near future, or at least I hope in the near future, a dramatic revamp will occur.

You're in luck. The number of people graduating from law school will go from nearly 50,000 to around 30,000 in just a few short years. Much of the revamp has already happened.

User avatar
mt2165
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby mt2165 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:01 pm

mist4bison wrote:
mt2165 wrote:
DiniMae wrote:
Dirigo wrote:I think work experience should be stressed after undergrad. I think the unfortunate CW in undergrad/life is to go straight to law school because "once you stop school, it's soooo hard to go back."


Similar to MBA or MA programs that encourage/require work experience?


yeah that would be a good idea, I think precisely part of the problem is that k-jd's dont know what to do with their life, thus LS. It's convenient and comforting to know you have a "career/plan" laid out in front of you, at the expense of experience, maturity, and consideration. I think it might also be interesting to require a quasi-clinical commitment where applicants have to spend a certain amount of time shadowing/volunteering/working in a legal setting, like they have with PA school.


I agree with the WE recommendation. I think that most people are under the assumption that they don't have time to put off law school/grad school in general. I mean half of the posters on here say "I have to do K-JD. I can't put it off" and generally their reasoning is just asinine: I can't get a job with my degree, my parents want me to, I can't afford to, I want to start right meow, etc. No matter how smart one is, they won't have valuable real-world adult experiences if they go K-JD.

However, I don't think a shadowing program would make sense. Or actual ugrad requirements. I majored in English and do you know how freaking hard it is for me to do legal writing? You're taught how to write for legal jobs in law school. And analyzing case law? I find it to be a lot different than analyzing any literature I've read. In regards to shadowing/volunteering/etc, any ugrad student who does this won't do substantial work that actually relates to the law. I can see them volunteering at a court house and doing intake of people trying to see lawyers. Not beneficial at all. Plus, there are so many different types of law that I feel shadowing doesn't convey. What about people at rural schools that don't have the opportunity to shadow?


Well I'm not saying you're general literature class adequately prepared you or anything, if anything that's not the case. What I'm really getting at is using prereqs as a impediment to people just haphazardedly applying to law school, with the marginal added benefit of better preparing people for LS. But you may be right, it might be a silly argument (since it seems like no classes can really prepare you for LS). But I think just witnessing the legal practice first hand is important. Even if only for some insight into what lawyers do; it seems like most people including myself, have little idea.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests