wannabejag wrote:CFC_Essien wrote:maxball12 wrote:I don't really have an opinion on this argument because I don't know the answer, and no one does except those serving on the boards making the decision. However, the ones arguing against the Col are missing the point. He is speaking to the current state of the economy, the current state of the JAG applicant pool; not the makeup of the pool years ago when the economy was not as bad. So, the fact you can cite the opinion of current JAGs is quite frankly completely irrelevant and completely baseless. They got into the JAG Corps at a time unlike the one we are currently in. That's what cracks me up most about the current JAGs I speak to, because they are always so optimistic when you tell them your resume, but they speak from their own experience applying to the JAG Corps, which could not have been more different than ours.
Exactly. I realize there are always exceptions to the rule. I'm not saying you have to be first in your class at Harvard to get ino the JAG Corps, you just have to be in the top third.
No, you don't. This bored has just duped you into thinking that if you go anywhere average and get average grades you are stuck in shit law all your life. I don't recommend getting bad grades obviously, but it doesn't make you an auto out for JAG, at least Army JAG that is. I can not speak for the other branches.
I guess sarcasm doesn't translate too well over these boards. Obviously one need not graduate from Harvard to get into JAGC, but I'm in line with the aforementioned argument that things ain't what they used to be, i.e. economic factors have contributed to a more competitive selectee-pool and this enormous emphasis on "the whole person" and "the interview" and etc. may be slightly exaggerated as a result. Doing well on the interview will obviously help you, but I'd bet if the branches were to disclose the statistics on their most recent selectees then the numbers for class rank, law review, lsat score and the like will be higher as of late.