Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby bk1 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:03 pm

robotclubmember wrote:I'm allied with all humans by default, lol. I'm sharing information that I believe is material on a forum whose express purpose is to share material information. I'm just concerned at the lack of reality appreciation that is being enjoyed by law school applicants. The number of students matriculating despite the documented and corroborated dearth of opportunities in the legal field is proof that applicants must just be unaware or in denial of the points I set out to make. The rampant denial appears to be some kind of coping method to deal with the ostensibly poor decisions of doubling down on a useless lib arts degree with a useless law degree.


Yeah because your post is totally going to convince people otherwise and it's not like a million other people haven't tried to make this same argument before.

afitouri
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby afitouri » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:05 pm

rayiner wrote:Again, the word "recession" implies shrinking GDP. We can be in a huge hole relative to 2007 (and we are, no doubt about that) and still not be in a recession.


No, it doesn't. There are numerous definitions of recession from numerous organizations. Some base it on the base year.

If this is the case, then since our economy has yet to recover to 2008 levels, we are still in recession and there was never a recovery.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby 071816 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:10 pm

Getting a job in 95% of fields is extremely tough. Not just law. Our generation is fucked.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby scammedhard » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:14 pm

chimp wrote:Getting a job in 95% of fields is extremely tough. Not just law. Our generation is fucked.

Our problems are not only related to jobs. We also have to deal with student loan debt since the cost of higher education has exploded in the last decades.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby 071816 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:19 pm

scammedhard wrote:
chimp wrote:Getting a job in 95% of fields is extremely tough. Not just law. Our generation is fucked.

Our problems are not only related to jobs. We also have to deal with student loans debts since the cost of education has exploded in the last decades.


I don't disagree with that.

User avatar
sundevil77
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:34 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby sundevil77 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:22 pm

Bill Cosby wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:
rayiner wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:Though I feel that as long as we have 'receded' beneath peak production, we are in a recession..


This isn't some bullshit philosophy class where you get to define terms based on how you "feel." Recession has a well-defined meaning, given by the root-word of the term. You can't just define it another way. If you want to harp about the poor economy, just say so in words that mean what you think they mean, rather than misusing words and making yourself look stupid.


congrats, you picked up on what was objectively the weakest part of my argument and ignored every other point. Because you're unable to address them? I don't know. I'll ask again, do you reeeaally believe that gdp is outpacing inflation. Because if it's not, that just isn't a recovery. And I don't believe that it truly is. And how do you explain rising unemployment. Arithmetic still matters.


Your entire argument is weak. We're basically being ask to take you word for it when you say the books are cooked.


Don't take his word for it. Go here http://www.shadowstats.com/. John Williams knows his stuff. Ongoing gov't manipulation of the data--besides being an objective fact--is something a lot of people believe in.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby tyro » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:25 pm

scammedhard wrote:
chimp wrote:Getting a job in 95% of fields is extremely tough. Not just law. Our generation is fucked.

Our problems are not only related to jobs. We also have to deal with student loans debts since the cost of higher education has exploded in the last decades.


Yeah but so do ugrads. I know plenty of recent grads who are in about 30k of debt and these people can only get like 40k/yr jobs starting out. I think they'll be all right though if they can make some advancements. In my eyes, as long as you're not like >70k in debt and at some shit law school, you can always find some assistant manager job at Pizza Hut or something to start paying it off if you don't find a job right away. If someone is like 200k deep at a school outside of say the T25 they are just cooking their own goose and shouldn't be complaining and saying "itts that daym ecomonyy".

Basically, instead of sending the message of "don't go to law school," I feel that it should be "don't get ripped off, idiots."

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby 071816 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:28 pm

I agree with what tyro said. Since the cost of higher education has gone up across the board, minimizing debt is key, especially when moving down the rankings.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:33 pm

Bill Cosby wrote:
Your entire argument is weak. We're basically being ask to take you word for it when you say the books are cooked.


Let's take the month of February for example. The fed reported inflation using PPI (Producer Price Index), a measure of wholesale prices that at its “core,” which reportedly strips out the volatile food and energy costs, showed a benign growth of 0.2 percent.

Headline numbers, which include the things we eat and drink and power our car with, showed an ugly 1.6 percent increase. But, of course, we’re not supposed to look at “headline” inflation, just the core numbers because they represent more constant cost patterns. But one index after another showed stunning surges, none more so than the gain in finished consumer foods. Those prices jumped 3.9 percent in February, the biggest gain in 37 years, going all the way back to the Nixon administration. Fresh and dry vegetables soared 48.7 percent in just one month.

Crude energy materials rose 0.9 percent in February and were up 17.8 percent over the past three months. The natural gas index jumped 7.6 percent in the month and intermediate energy goods rose 4.3 percent, the largest one-month gain since January 2010.

An added little gov't obfuscation when it comes to energy: The PPI measures prices at a fixed date just before the mid-point of the month, which in the case of February would have been before the huge run in oil that sent crude prices over $100 a barrel and gas at the pump to $3.50 a gallon.

But the gov't only wants to use "core" inflation in its statistics.

afitouri wrote:
rayiner wrote:Again, the word "recession" implies shrinking GDP. We can be in a huge hole relative to 2007 (and we are, no doubt about that) and still not be in a recession.


No, it doesn't. There are numerous definitions of recession from numerous organizations. Some base it on the base year.

If this is the case, then since our economy has yet to recover to 2008 levels, we are still in recession and there was never a recovery.


THANK YOU. Exactly what I was saying before. The people who write the rules on what a recovery is and then insiting we are in one is as honest as the ABA writing the rules for employment reporting and then schools boasting 99% employment. It's a farce.

Just because the gov't spoon fed you one definition, that happens to be neatly included in your USA-indoctrination books I mean textbooks, doesn't mean it's the best or only definition. I think the gov'ts definitions are arbitrary and misleading. Just look at the economic indicators, to call this a recovery doesn't mean it's a recovery, it means we have a very playful and amusing definition of recovery.

User avatar
SilverE2
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby SilverE2 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:41 pm

Isn't there a sticky for posts like this one?

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:54 pm

chimp wrote:Getting a job in 95% of fields is extremely tough. Not just law. Our generation is fucked.


True. But let's go back to the original link.

What other professions can you name that have experienced a TWENTY PERCENT DECLINE IN STARTING PAY IN ONE YEAR???

The legal field is a special case. It is not like every other field. We can't rationalize the decision to go to law school because it's shitty everywhere anyway.

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby WestOfTheRest » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:57 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
chimp wrote:Getting a job in 95% of fields is extremely tough. Not just law. Our generation is fucked.


True. But let's go back to the original link.

What other professions can you name that have experienced a TWENTY PERCENT DECLINE IN STARTING PAY IN ONE YEAR???

The legal field is a special case. It is not like every other field. We can't rationalize the decision to go to law school because it's shitty everywhere anyway.

Law school is not an irrational choice. Blindly going to a TTT, with no scholarship, and hopes of biglaw, is an irrational choice. The legal field is oversaturated with new lawyers from bad schools, that doesn't mean students from decent schools don't have a chance.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby bk1 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:57 pm

robotclubmember wrote:The legal field is a special case. It is not like every other field. We can't rationalize the decision to go to law school because it's shitty everywhere anyway.


But paying sticker at a T14 is an amazing and brilliant decision that puts us far above those plebes who take scholarships at T1s. Amirite or amirite?

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby areyouinsane » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:58 pm

Robot, I've got out of law school in '04 and even then things were universally horrible for most T-2 grads. Most everyone from my class who didn't just give up and return to their old career (which was a large portion of my friends) ended up in shitlaw insurance defense for 45 K or less. The employment situation for TTT grads was always gruesome, but not until the Top 14'ers started feeling/sharing the pain did this situation hit the mainstream press.

I was the "anonymous source" for a 2006 article in the American Lawyer magazine called "Slaves of New York" by journalist Julie Triedman, which detailed the cockroach infestation and filthy restrooms/working conditions in the Paul Weiss basement. This article was among the first which addressed the miserable, low-wage shitjobs most TTT grads could expect upon graduation.

Bottom line is that law is, for most, a ticket to massive debt and a lower-working class lifestyle at best and bankruptcy/chronic unemployment at worst.

The fact that there are threads on here about 'Bozo Class of 2014 and "In at Brooklyn" tells you all you need to know about how futile trying to explain the facts really is. It's always "some other guy" who ends up with lung cancer, or in a car wreck, or shopping some shitstain JD around to foreclosure mills and temp agencies. O L's have an esp. hard time appreciating the laws of supply & demand, at least until they experience them firsthand.

For example, look at how many former revenue streams of shitlaw lawyers have been eliminated or greatly slashed back the last 10 years:

1.) Forming LLC's and S-corps is now an online mouse click operation in most states, including NJ. The NJ Dept. of Treasury has a very user friendly website where anyone can set up these companies in under 10 minutes. Before the Internet, a lawyer could pick up a few of these a year and charge a grand a piece for them.

2.) Residential Closings: Deader than dead. House sales at the lowest point since 1947, and getting worse all the time. Again, about a grand a closing gone bye-bye.

3.) Uncontested divorce: A recent article showed that even in rich states like CT, 85% of these are filed pro-se.

4.) Traffic court: The DWI laws are now so strict (and so many loopholes/technicalities are gone) that for 99% of people charged with DWI, you won't get any better deal with a lawyer than going pro-se. The state laws are so black & white, and intense lobbying by MADD has made this almost impossible to beat. You blow a .08 or above, you're fucked. Period.

5.) Personal injury: Yes, there are still huge cases out there, and some guys still make a killing. Of course, some people still make a living running blacksmith shops and making wooden barrels. Bottom line is that since roughly 2005, almost all auto carriers mark any case without broken bones a "no pay" case. Go ahead and google "NY Threshold Law" - it is harder now than ever to make any $$$ of the typical fender bender case with soft-tissue injuries, and 95%+ of auto accidents are exactly that. Also with the shit economy, many people are cutting back and carrying 25 K state minimum policies, so even if you find a client with a severed spinal cord, the most you'll get from the carrier is 25 K, which is roughly an 8 K fee after expenses and months (or years) of depositions, motions, and other haggling.

The areas above were once the bread n' butter of solo lawyers, and now the party is over. You guys are showing up to a New Year's Eve party at 4 am on Jan 1. The booze is gone, the lampshades are smashed, and anyone with any sense is already making for the door with a throbbing headache and puke all over their shoes.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:01 pm

bk1 wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:The legal field is a special case. It is not like every other field. We can't rationalize the decision to go to law school because it's shitty everywhere anyway.


But paying sticker at a T14 is an amazing and brilliant decision that puts us far above those plebes who take scholarships at T1s. Amirite or amirite?


Straw man much? Show me where I said that. I said everything from T14 to T50 is a 50-50 crap shoot (obviously scales according to rank), and it is. I said T14's rule of good employment prospects still has many exceptions. Presenting a caricature of my argument and then attacking the caricature instead of my argument is a waste of your time and mine. Put up an honest debate or shove. I don't care if a million people before me have said this, I'll be a million and one.

User avatar
drays917
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby drays917 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:04 pm

I'm not going to argue with how crappy or not-crappy the legal job market is. People can make decisions for themselves. I do, however, take issue with the complete lack of economics knowledge going on in this thread.

robotclubmember wrote:
But the gov't only wants to use "core" inflation in its statistics.



Yes. Measuring wildly volatile data and trying to derive some sort of meaningful overall trend from them is a waste of time. If otherwise relatively static prices increase significantly, then there's probably something to it. Also, complaining that the government is trying to sugarcoat things by suggesting deflation is just around the corner either doesn't understand what sugar-coating or what deflation is.

robotclubmember wrote:
THANK YOU. Exactly what I was saying before. The people who write the rules on what a recovery is and then insiting we are in one is as honest as the ABA writing the rules for employment reporting and then schools boasting 99% employment. It's a farce.

Just because the gov't spoon fed you one definition, that happens to be neatly included in your USA-indoctrination books I mean textbooks, doesn't mean it's the best or only definition. I think the gov'ts definitions are arbitrary and misleading. Just look at the economic indicators, to call this a recovery doesn't mean it's a recovery, it means we have a very playful and amusing definition of recovery.


a) A recession is defined as the period of time in which the economy is contracting. If the economy is contracting, then it is a recession. If the economy is not contracting, then it is not a recession. There are other terms you can use to describe our present state, like "weak" or "under-performing" or whatever, but "recession" is a word you can't just redefine because you don't like the actual definition. You don't get to redefine what GDP is, or what inflation is, or what exchange rate is, and you don't get to redefine what recession is.

b) A recovery is an improvement in performance. If the economy is stronger than it was last time you looked, it's a recovery. If it's weaker than it was, it's not a recovery. Again, just because you don't like the definition doesn't mean you can make your own.

c) The government doesn't write economic definitions. That's like saying the FDA writes vegetable definitions - they might codify existing terminology, but the scientific field was there first.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby bk1 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:05 pm

robotclubmember wrote:Straw man much? Show me where I said that. I said everything from T14 to T50 is a 50-50 crap shoot (obviously scales according to rank), and it is. I said T14's rule of good employment prospects still has many exceptions. Presenting a caricature of my argument and then attacking the caricature instead of my argument is a waste of your time and mine. Put up an honest debate or shove. I don't care if a million people before me have said this, I'll be a million and one.


Oh you mean the argument where you shat all over people who go to non T14 law schools and yet neglected to turn that penetrating gaze inward?

robotclubmember wrote:Everyone on this forum has an excuse for why they're different, but face it, if you're not going to a T1 at minimum, very high chance you're flat out stupid. If you're going to a T50 but not a T14, 50-50 chance you're just plain stupid.


Yeah I'm sure you're a bastion of intelligence yourself. Then again it's NU so I shouldn't be surprised by their low standards when they let in people like myself and DF.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby tyro » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:11 pm

areyouinsane wrote:The areas above were once the bread n' butter of solo lawyers, and now the party is over.


On a board where mid-law is often frowned upon, I'm thinking that discussing solo practice might be a little bit off-topic/out of place. I could be wrong though :oops:

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:12 pm

drays917 wrote:
Yes. Measuring wildly volatile data and trying to derive some sort of meaningful overall trend from them is a waste of time. If otherwise relatively static prices increase significantly, then there's probably something to it. Also, complaining that the government is trying to sugarcoat things by suggesting deflation is just around the corner either doesn't understand what sugar-coating or what deflation is.

a) A recession is defined as the period of time in which the economy is contracting. If the economy is contracting, then it is a recession. If the economy is not contracting, then it is not a recession. There are other terms you can use to describe our present state, like "weak" or "under-performing" or whatever, but "recession" is a word you can't just redefine because you don't like the actual definition. You don't get to redefine what GDP is, or what inflation is, or what exchange rate is, and you don't get to redefine what recession is.

b) A recovery is an improvement in performance. If the economy is stronger than it was last time you looked, it's a recovery. If it's weaker than it was, it's not a recovery. Again, just because you don't like the definition doesn't mean you can make your own.

c) The government doesn't write economic definitions. That's like saying the FDA writes vegetable definitions - they might codify existing terminology, but the scientific field was there first.


You just haven't heard what I've said. You keep repeating a definition from rote memory. I'm not challenging whether or not we are "technically" meet the criteria of a recession, I'm challenging the definition being bandied about to claim that this is a recovery. The definition that has been spoon-fed to you is not the only definition, bro. And you need to understand that the "science" of economics is relatively new as we measure it today and the obsolete definitions you are using were prepared by an elite establishment altogether indistinguishable from gov't. We should be considering the base period, from which we are still far recessed. If the government convinced you that this is a recovery, then allow me to convince you that the turd I just squatted out is a fine entree at a five-star restaurant. I'm sure I could come up with a definition that makes it so.

I see what you are saying. By the letter of the word, this is a recovery, but in spirit, this is in no way a recovery.

User avatar
MTal
Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby MTal » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:12 pm

CastleRock wrote:Law school is not an irrational choice. Blindly going to a TTT, with no scholarship, and hopes of biglaw, is an irrational choice. The legal field is oversaturated with new lawyers from bad schools, that doesn't mean students from decent schools don't have a chance.


The vast majority even at "decent schools" (T50) do not.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:14 pm

bk1 wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:Straw man much? Show me where I said that. I said everything from T14 to T50 is a 50-50 crap shoot (obviously scales according to rank), and it is. I said T14's rule of good employment prospects still has many exceptions. Presenting a caricature of my argument and then attacking the caricature instead of my argument is a waste of your time and mine. Put up an honest debate or shove. I don't care if a million people before me have said this, I'll be a million and one.


Oh you mean the argument where you shat all over people who go to non T14 law schools and yet neglected to turn that penetrating gaze inward?

robotclubmember wrote:Everyone on this forum has an excuse for why they're different, but face it, if you're not going to a T1 at minimum, very high chance you're flat out stupid. If you're going to a T50 but not a T14, 50-50 chance you're just plain stupid.


Yeah I'm sure you're a bastion of intelligence yourself. Then again it's NU so I shouldn't be surprised by their low standards when they let in people like myself and DF.


Like I said, I'm fully prepared to fall back on my old career if I don't like what I see. An education is the cultivation of character, not the accumulation of administrative skills. I'm going because I want to think better, first and foremost. Otherwise, I do have a good plan personally, but like I said, I'll cut my investment loose if I don't like what I see.

To be honest I'm just not sure what exactly it is you are disagreeing with.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:15 pm

areyouinsane wrote:You guys are showing up to a New Year's Eve party at 4 am on Jan 1. The booze is gone, the lampshades are smashed, and anyone with any sense is already making for the door with a throbbing headache and puke all over their shoes.


I lol'd

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby bk1 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:19 pm

robotclubmember wrote:To be honest I'm just not sure what exactly it is you are disagreeing with.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying your OP is hypocritical and douchey because you shit all over the risks that other people are taking without acknowledging the risk in your own decision.
robotclubmember wrote:I'm going because I want to think better, first and foremost.

Holy fuck. For a tenth of the $150,000 you are paying NU I could teach you to think better.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:26 pm

bk1 wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:To be honest I'm just not sure what exactly it is you are disagreeing with.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying your OP is hypocritical and douchey because you shit all over the risks that other people are taking without acknowledging the risk in your own decision.


Not so. The post I made right after OP says:

robotclubmember wrote:i'm mentally braced for the possibility of falling back on my prior and much stabler career, but I think that in t14, the majority of graduates are satisfied with their options. there is an exception to every rule and the exception may be arising more frequently, but a decent job that requires a jd is still the rule for t14 grads.


I have acknowledged the risks. There was a lot of inputs into my decision. I merely stated that you shouldn't go unless you believe you have a good plan and reality supports that plan. Right now, I feel ok with it still. Dude I keep spreadsheets forecasting the expected ROI of a law degree, the numbers looked good, but I'm open to re-evaluating it. If it doesn't work out, I'll go back to being a CPA. Not a big deal.

robotclubmember wrote:I'm going because I want to think better, first and foremost.
Holy fuck. For a tenth of the $150,000 you are paying NU I could teach you to think better.


I'm not paying that much, and I said it was my first consideration, but not my only one :)

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby bk1 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:36 pm

robotclubmember wrote:Not so. The post I made right after OP says:


I think you have an inflated view of T14s and make arbitrary distinctions between schools (e.g. T1). If you're going to say things like "YOU ARE STUPID" to certain groups of people, at least have the ability to recognize your own failings in the same post.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests