Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Mullens
Posts: 971
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:34 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby Mullens » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:12 am

URMSenator52 wrote:
Mullens wrote:
URMSenator52 wrote:Apply to UVA (ED),WUSTL (ED),GULC,Fordham,GW.. With your numbers you still have T30 shot with $$$.. Then transfer to CCN or Stanford after 1L.


This is a joke, right? Let me guess you're a 0L. Transferring is very difficult and no one should attend law school with the plan to transfer.


Obviously,you should not go to law school with the intent to transfer. If OP is in the top 5-10% then OP obviously can transfer if desired. Do you read 509's?


Huh? You initial post endorses a plan to attend a T30 with money and then to transfer to CCN or Stanford after 1L. OP, don't think you can transfer easily. You have to finish in the top 5-10% of your class to have a shot and it's impossible to know how you will perform in law school until you get grades back.

London_LA
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby London_LA » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:56 am

I'm above 200usd already for the year already and will finish above 300 if a couple things go my way in the back end of the year. I'd definitely be above 300 if Brexit hadn't screwed cable. This is my first year of really serious production tho and if I stayed in my job my colleagues are between £400-1.6 and hopefully I'll hit that range before L1 next year. I want to go to law school to become a prosecutor. I don't have any real interest in making money and want to get into public service. I only pursued a high paying job to fund law school. If you saw how the rich raise their kids you would want nothing to do with money. Wealth fucks people up at an existential level, almost without exception. You can only serve God or money blah blah blah.

Separately, I don't understand why people go to school for 3 years to slave for 10 to earn 300k in big law. There are monkeys making more money in a shorter period of time in other employment, and if you have any mathematical ability you can make seven figures 4 years in trading for JPM. Or you can keep 15% of your profit running yards of capital at a HF and start taking down 5-20 bucks a year by the time you're 30. Honestly if you're going into law for $$$ lol you picked the wrong game to play son.

Stanford is important because I have a specific long term objective to use Oregon/Hawaii/Vermont/Washington as a proof of concept for a policy, and then use that proof of concept to overturn a specific law in CA (Prop 13). That will require political power and a Stanford degree will carry the most weight inside CA. That is besides the point that it is an amazing school in the best State imo. This is a consideration for 20-30 years time but it is important to make decisions strategically at every stage.

I'm pretty confident I can do well enough L1 to transfer. And if you read what I wrote again you'll see that I endorsed a plan to go top 80 for 3 years with *one eye* on *potentially* crushing L1 and transferring.
Last edited by London_LA on Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sparkytrainer
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby sparkytrainer » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:03 pm

London_LA wrote:I'm above 200usd already for the year already and will finish above 300 if a couple things go my way in the back end of the year. I'd definitely be above 300 if Brexit hadn't screwed cable. This is my first year of really serious production tho and if I stayed in my job my colleagues are between £400-1.6 and hopefully I'll hit that range before L1 next year. I want to go to law school to become a prosecutor. I don't have any real interest in making money and want to get into public service. I only pursued a high paying job to fund law school. If you saw how the rich raise their kids you would want nothing to do with money. Wealth fucks people up at an existential level, almost without exception. You can only serve God or money blah blah blah.

Separately, I don't understand why people go to school for 3 years to slave for 10 to earn 300k in big law. There are monkeys making more money in a shorter period of time in other employment, and if you have any mathematical ability you can make seven figures 4 years in trading for JPM. Or you can keep 15% of your profit running yards of capital at a HF and start taking down 5-20 bucks a year by the time you're 30. Honestly if you're going into law for $$$ lol you picked the wrong game to play son.

Stanford is important because I have a specific long term objective to use Oregon/Hawaii/Vermont/Washington as a proof of concept for a policy, and then use that proof of concept to overturn a specific law in CA (Prop 13). That will require political power and a Stanford degree will carry the most weight inside CA. That is besides the point that it is an amazing school in the best State imo. This is a consideration for 20-30 years time but it is important to make decisions strategically at every stage.

I'm pretty confident I can do well enough L1 to transfer. And if you read what I wrote again you'll see that I endorsed a plan to go top 80 for 3 years happily with *one eye* on crushing L1 and transferring.


Calling troll. Good job OP, you got to page 2 before being called out

London_LA
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby London_LA » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:09 pm

I'm not trolling lol don't get mad just because someone is telling you the truth about your decision to make $$$ from big law. There are idiots who will make more money than you every single year in easier jobs with fewer qualifications until you make partner, assuming of course that they don't open their own business.

Here are my billings YTD. I take home half. I guess that isn't proof because I'm such a committed troll that I prepared a spreadsheet just to wind up TLS hahaha

https://imgur.com/a/j1tXn

cavalier1138
Posts: 4466
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:24 pm

Holy fuck, it's this guy again.

(Seriously, read the whole thread. It gets better with every post.)

London_LA
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby London_LA » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:51 pm

Still telling people not to pursue their dreams are you cavalier? You were helpful and gave me food for thought on how to tailor the relevancy of law school to my long term objectives and career path, and I used that in my personal statement, so thank you.

User avatar
Mullens
Posts: 971
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:34 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby Mullens » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:06 pm

London_LA wrote:Still telling people not to pursue their dreams are you cavalier? You were helpful and gave me food for thought on how to tailor the relevancy of law school to my long term objectives and career path, and I used that in my personal statement, so thank you.


When your dream is to raise property taxes then maybe yeah he should. Are you a bad tv super villain? Honestly I doubt you get into any decent law school because you're obviously delusional and that seems like it'll come across in your applications.

London_LA
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby London_LA » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:26 pm

What a painful comment. Go read Progress and Poverty by Henry George. You're trashing the most important idea in political economy and clearly have never heard about it before. For the record, the idea is to raise taxes on land, not property, which is properly considered capital not land, and to use that increase in order to eliminate all taxes on labour and capital. Unless you own thousands of acres or a block of downtown Manhattan you're going to come out well ahead personally - well ahead - which is to say nothing of the massively beneficial structural effects to the economy for labourers and capitalists.

London_LA
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby London_LA » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:04 pm

Maybe you don't realise how immensely popular this idea is with people who are actually familiar with it.

Einstein: "Men like Henry George are rare unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent love of justice."

Louis D. Brandeis was a Georgist. So was Clarence Darrow. But cavalier kept saying there was no relation between the policy and the law. So were FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Rutherford Hayes, Grover Cleveland, Henry Ford, Leo Tolstoy, Aldous Huxley, and Milton Friedman to name but a few. Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson believed that land belongs in usufruct to the living, which is the core ethical tenet of Georgism. But I suppose you know something about land value taxation that these people do not?

https://henrygeorgedevon.wordpress.com/quotes/
Last edited by London_LA on Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

rachelac
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:45 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby rachelac » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:23 pm

I recognize I haven't been here as a non-lurker for very long but this is truly the most bizarre thread I've ever seen.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 28444
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:58 pm

London_LA wrote:Maybe you don't realise how immensely popular this idea is with people who are actually familiar with it.

Einstein: "Men like Henry George are rare unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent love of justice."

Louis D. Brandeis was a Georgist. So was Clarence Darrow. But cavalier kept saying there was no relation between the policy and the law. So were FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Rutherford Hayes, Grover Cleveland, Henry Ford, Leo Tolstoy, Aldous Huxley, and Milton Friedman to name but a few. Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson believed that land belongs in usufruct to the living, which is the core ethical tenet of Georgism. But I suppose you know something about land value taxation that these people do not?

https://henrygeorgedevon.wordpress.com/quotes/

Is the idea popular with anyone who hasn't been dead for decades?

Of course there's a relationship between policy and the law. There isn't always a clear relationship between developing/enacting policy and getting a JD.

User avatar
guynourmin
Posts: 3426
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:42 pm

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby guynourmin » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:59 pm

seems like it would be easier to convince trump this is a good idea than to go to stanford and become president. food for thought. also, much faster.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 28444
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:00 pm

In any case, OP, getting into Stanford with a sub 3.0 is extremely unlikely to happen. You should apply based on the standard wisdom about splitters and attend a school you're willing to graduate from. If you do ace 1L and can transfer, great (though be warned that Stanford specifically takes very very few transfers), but don't plan on that happening and worry about it only after you get 1L grades.

iwoeps
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:27 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby iwoeps » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:08 pm

.
Last edited by iwoeps on Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cavalier1138
Posts: 4466
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:08 pm

London_LA wrote:Louis D. Brandeis was a Georgist. So was Clarence Darrow. But cavalier kept saying there was no relation between the policy and the law.


Brandeis was Jewish, and yet people keep saying that there is no relationship between being Jewish and wearing glasses. Get your heads out of the sand, sheeple!

London_LA
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby London_LA » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:59 pm

Actually it is popular with pretty much everyone who is properly educated in political economy, dead or alive. Truth endures. I'd really stop bashing the idea or coming up with glib criticisms before trying to understand it. If you read Progress and Poverty and can come up with a fatal criticism of the idea, I will pay for you to go to law school instead of me. No joke. That is how confident I am that you will be persuaded by the idea. I honestly don't think there is a person who has ever existed who has read that book and disagreed with it. It's a shame people aren't more naturally curious about one of the greatest intellectual works of all time. It would solve a lot of problems if you were.

I'm not arguing the point that a JD is a viable avenue to policy making per se. I'm arguing it is a viable avenue to promoting the idea. There is historical precedent for lawyers being heavily involved in promoting the policy. There is historical precedent for prosecutors not to be prosecutors for their entire life. There are also things I need to learn from legal training in general. So let's not get back into a demeaning conversation about what law school is actually for again, eh cavalier? Man you are so negative it's just painful to engage with you. And be honest mate, you had no idea about Brandeis or Barrow. I'm not sure how you are so certain in your conclusion that LVT and law are mutually exclusive academic and professional paths. That would seem to require an understanding of what LVT actually is in order to measure its relation to the law, which you don't have. Maybe you think we're going to overhaul America's entire economy without lawyers who know what they are talking about.

I have thought about convincing Trump directly actually but not sure how it's possible to get in the ear of the President. Maybe I should tweet at him :) He could be easily persuaded. A LVT would be a massive boom for construction, so there's a winning argument in there for his value set. I have zero interest in being President per se, I just want to help with this idea and persuade some juries to convict bad people because I like seeing bad people brought to justice and I relish an argument. That being said, how many of you understand how this policy will provide the blueprint for combatting ecological disaster? How it will protect an under-skilled global workforce from automation by facilitating an efficient UBI? How it is the essential solution to wage slavery and systemic poverty? Please forgive me for not trusting that someone else will try to carry the cause where it needs to go ultimately.

Great point on the admissions correlation, I didn't consider that at all. Hopefully these 23 schools cover 99% of my risk of not getting in anywhere?

Reach/Pipe-dream,
Yale
Stanford
Harvard
Berkeley
Columbia
Chicago
Cornell
NYU
U Penn
Virginia
Northwestern
Michigan
Duke
Georgetown
USC

Matches,
UCLA
Boston
Texas
George Washington

Safeties,
Irvine
Davis
Hastings
Hawai'i

My understanding is that I have realistic chances at U Penn, Virginia, Northwestern, Texas, Georgetown, UCLA, Irvine, Davis, Hastings, and Hawaii (although I hear it's hard if you aren't local). So I should be covered with this spread.
Last edited by London_LA on Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:01 pm, edited 5 times in total.

cavalier1138
Posts: 4466
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:02 pm

London_LA wrote:Actually it is popular with pretty much everyone who is properly educated in political economy, dead or alive. Truth endures. I'd really stop bashing the idea or coming up with glib criticisms before trying to understand it. If you read Progress and Poverty and can come up with a fatal criticism of the idea, I will pay for you to go to law school instead of me. No joke. That is how confident I am that you will be persuaded by the idea. I honestly don't think there is a person who has ever existed who has read that book and disagreed with it. It's a shame people aren't more naturally curious about one of the greatest intellectual works of all time. It would solve a lot of problems if you were.

I'm not arguing the point that a JD is a viable avenue to policy making per se. I'm arguing it is a viable avenue to promoting the idea. There is historical precedent for lawyers being heavily involved in promoting the policy. There is historical precedent for prosecutors to not be prosecutors for their entire life. There are also things I need to learn from legal training in general. So let's not get back into a demeaning conversation about what law school is actually for again, eh cavalier? Man you are so negative it's just painful to engage with you. And be honest mate, you had no idea about Brandeis or Barrow. I'm sure how you are so certain in your conclusion that LVT and law are mutually exclusive academic and professional paths. That would seem to necessitate an understanding of what LVT actually is in order to measure its relation to the law, which you don't have. Maybe you think we're going to overhaul America's entire economy without lawyers who know what they are talking about.

I have thought about convincing Trump directly actually but not sure how it's possible to get in the ear of the President. Maybe I should tweet at him :) He could be easily persuaded. A LVT would be a massive boom for construction, so there's a winning argument in there for his value set. I have zero interest in being President per se, I just want to help with this idea and persuade some juries to convict bad people because I like seeing bad people brought to justice and I relish an argument. That being said, how many of you understand how this policy will provide the blueprint for combatting ecological disaster? How it will protect an under-skilled global workforce from automation by facilitating an efficient UBI? How it is the essential solution to wage slavery and systemic poverty? Please forgive me for not trusting that you will carry the cause where it needs to eventually go.

Great point on the admissions correlation, I didn't consider that at all. Hopefully these 23 schools cover 99% of my risk of not getting in anywhere?

Reach/Pipe-dream,
Yale
Stanford
Harvard
Berkeley
Columbia
Chicago
Cornell
NYU
U Penn
Virginia
Northwestern
Michigan
Duke
Georgetown
USC

Matches,
UCLA
Boston
Texas
George Washington

Safeties,
Irvine
Davis
Hastings
Hawai'i

My understanding is that I have realistic chances at U Penn, Virginia, Northwestern, Texas, Georgetown, UCLA, Irvine, Davis, Hastings, and Hawaii (although I hear it's hard if you aren't local). So I should be covered with this spread.


QFP

London_LA
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Hold out for Stamford or ED to Columbia? [Split Decision]

Postby London_LA » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:06 pm

I made some stylistic changes if you don't mind quoting the new version, thanks.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest