You Gotta Have Faith wrote:
Btw, good luck to Romo and Stephanie13 with write-on!! Y'all are gonna do great
Thank you!!

You Gotta Have Faith wrote:
Btw, good luck to Romo and Stephanie13 with write-on!! Y'all are gonna do great
You Gotta Have Faith wrote:I know 20 sounds high, but I really don't believe I am mistaken. Take a look at the current masthead:
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/membership/current-masthead/
Only the "Staff Editors" are 2Ls. And there are 40-ish of them. That means that including 3Ls, it is closer to an 80-90 membership. And yes, only 27, give or take, actually make it on because of grades. After transfers, I would say there are at least 20 spots available for LR beyond the top 10%.
Give or take, my guess is that 4-7 of the top 10% transfer out. I'm not actually willing to say that all of our transfers are in the top 10%, because it's just not true. We have two people who went to UCLA/USC/Vandy who were only a bit above the median. And there's a person who was in the 20% range that went to UVA/NW/Duke/Penn. That said, the majority of people that leave WUSTL do so for places like NYU, Chicago, and Stanford. There are about 10 or so transfers out annually. Very few find it worthwhile to leave their spot in the top 10% for anything less than CCN. And many don't even leave for that.
People may not like to hear this, but as much as it helps, LR by no means signifies that one was in the top 10%. That's just not an assumption that one can make at WUSTL. There are people on LR that have to work hard, or wait it out, to find their jobs like a lot of the class. Maybe half of LR is top 10%, but that's about what it is.
Btw, good luck to Romo and Stephanie13 with write-on!! Y'all are gonna do great
Hannibal wrote:If you get median grades but write on to LR, do you guys think that's a significant job prospect boost?
romothesavior wrote:I'm curious to know how many people you think 1) pick up the packet, 2) finish the packet, and 3) take the write-on seriously. I feel like that number likely shrinks from 1 to 2 to 3.
And thanks for the well wishes! (and good luck to Strato too, even though I'm sure he's like top 5% or something)
romothesavior wrote:thexfactor wrote:just curious, does anyone patrol the parking lot right next to the law school?
I have gone entire days in the lot right off of Throop without getting a ticket. If you go down an entire level from the top, you can park there and almost never get ticketed. The main level and the upper levels seem to be the main areas that get patrolled.
thexfactor wrote:romothesavior wrote:thexfactor wrote:just curious, does anyone patrol the parking lot right next to the law school?
I have gone entire days in the lot right off of Throop without getting a ticket. If you go down an entire level from the top, you can park there and almost never get ticketed. The main level and the upper levels seem to be the main areas that get patrolled.
do you know how much a ticket is?
I have a night parking permit. I park in dark areas with a lot of cars. HOpefully they will just see a permit and not check what color the permit is.
ckenn wrote:This thread has been great, thanks everyone for all your input.
Does anyone have any experience with the transnational program? I have received some e-mails from Prof. Peil and I'm thinking of joining it when when I start this fall.
romothesavior wrote:Many, many law 3Ls at WUSTL and elsewhere would get off an appendage to get a 50k starting salary right now.
romothesavior wrote:I think a good alternative to biglaw is plaintiff's work. You'll be making a lot less than you would at a defense firm starting out, but the intermediate and long-term opportunities are there for you to make huge bucks. You may start out at 40-50k (or even less), but you'll also get a percentage of your take on cases. A few years in, you can easily be making 100k+. I've spoken with a number of plaintiff's attorneys, and all of them have told me that within 3-5 years, they were making FAR more than their friends who went the biglaw route. Biglaw is a great way to pay off debts quickly, but unless you make partner (and most don't), the financial opportunities are typically on the other side of the fence.
Of course, for every plaintiff's attorney making it rain, there are a handful who are fighting to keep the roof over their head. But if you can get in with a place that has a respectable book of business, you can make a real nice living on the plaintiff's side. That's what I plan to do if I strike out at OCI, and I definitely want to be on the plaintiff's side long-term.
Yes, some 50-70k jobs do exist, but they are not easy to get. Many, many law 3Ls at WUSTL and elsewhere would get off an appendage to get a 50k starting salary right now. The real key is to set yourself up for a backup plan if OCI fails. Work for a prosecutor or a PD or something your 1L year and build connections there. If you strike out at OCI, you'll be grateful for job that offers 10-year IBR forgiveness. Network throughout your 1L and 2L year. Work in clinics and work internships during the school year. Meet people, follow up with people, and get your name out there. The more contacts you have, the more likely you are to develop a backup plan. This is important because odds are your grades won't be good enough to get a biglaw job. ALWAYS keep this in mind.
romothesavior wrote:I think a good alternative to biglaw is plaintiff's work. You'll be making a lot less than you would at a defense firm starting out, but the intermediate and long-term opportunities are there for you to make huge bucks. You may start out at 40-50k (or even less), but you'll also get a percentage of your take on cases. A few years in, you can easily be making 100k+. I've spoken with a number of plaintiff's attorneys, and all of them have told me that within 3-5 years, they were making FAR more than their friends who went the biglaw route. Biglaw is a great way to pay off debts quickly, but unless you make partner (and most don't), the financial opportunities are typically on the other side of the fence.
Of course, for every plaintiff's attorney making it rain, there are a handful who are fighting to keep the roof over their head. But if you can get in with a place that has a respectable book of business, you can make a real nice living on the plaintiff's side. That's what I plan to do if I strike out at OCI, and I definitely want to be on the plaintiff's side long-term.
Yes, some 50-70k jobs do exist, but they are not easy to get. Many, many law 3Ls at WUSTL and elsewhere would get off an appendage to get a 50k starting salary right now. The real key is to set yourself up for a backup plan if OCI fails. Work for a prosecutor or a PD or something your 1L year and build connections there. If you strike out at OCI, you'll be grateful for job that offers 10-year IBR forgiveness. Network throughout your 1L and 2L year. Work in clinics and work internships during the school year. Meet people, follow up with people, and get your name out there. The more contacts you have, the more likely you are to develop a backup plan. This is important because odds are your grades won't be good enough to get a biglaw job. ALWAYS keep this in mind.
PSUFB1114 wrote:Can you please touch on which strategies you found most helpful throughout 1L (supplements, outlining, test prep, etc.).
Apologies if this has already been covered.
JCougar wrote:PSUFB1114 wrote:Can you please touch on which strategies you found most helpful throughout 1L (supplements, outlining, test prep, etc.).
Apologies if this has already been covered.
Everyone is different, but so far, I've found hornbooks to be helpful above and beyond anything else. E&Es are okay, but they test only the basics. Commercial outlines are crap. Reading a hornbook along with your daily casebook reading (not trying to cram one in in the last few days of the semester), and having your professor go over one of your practice exam answers with you in person, are what I have concluded is the best way to learn. But we'll see what my grades are this semester...
And everyone is different.
PSUFB1114 wrote:Can you please touch on which strategies you found most helpful throughout 1L (supplements, outlining, test prep, etc.).
Apologies if this has already been covered.
I think the key to law school is to pace yourself, relax, and have fun, but also know when to kick it into high gear. Is law school a lot of work? Yes. But don't make it more work than it needs to be. The first 2-3 months of the semester are a lot of fun (well, except for when briefs and memos are due). Throughout the semester, your primary focus should be on taking good class notes, reading the cases, and most importantly, paying attention to the professor. Professors, especially ones who have taught for a while, will often tip their hand and lay out exactly what they want, or they will use certain terms and emphasize certain points. I think so much of law school is just getting inside the professor's head and knowing what they are looking for. If they write something on the board, especially a rule or a chart, they usually do so for a reason. Being able to spit back at them what they told you back in week 4 of class will get you huge points.
Honestly, don't try to stress too much about class prep at this point. The key thing you need to do for the first half of the semester is just keep up. Then about halfway through, start reading through supplements to 1) recall things you already learned and 2) synthesize the information. I usually don't start making outlines until about 3-4 weeks before the exam. Obviously there are different strokes for different folks, but I managed to finish with good grades last semester, and I didn't ever come even remotely close to the Arrow guide to law school. Personally, I think his guide is outrageous and over the top, and very few people do that kind of shit in law school. A lot of the people I know who worked the hardest did poorly, and it's because they didn't work smart.
Which leads me to my next point: don't get bogged down with the fluff. So many students put together these 100 page outlines that amount to nothing more than their notes and ramblings on the subject matter. This is not at all helpful, in my opinion. So much of law school classes is just extraneous B.S., and so many people (even some of my smartest friends) get caught up in this. What really matters are 1) the cut and dried rules and 2) the frameworks for analysis. Knowing the exception to the exception or knowing some random rule from some random case means nothing if you can't clearly and concisely identify and articulate the main issues. This is where the points are gained. You gain next to nothing for adding "fluff" or for citing to some random case we read (in most classes). They want to see you spot the issue, state the rule that applies, and go through the analysis of the rule.
On the exam, you need to be able to see an issue, and then argue BOTH SIDES. What this typically requires is "compartmentalizing" the issue. For example, in constitutional law, I have a table of the most important topics we covered. On the top of the chart are three labels: "Federal Regulation of Private Activity," "Federal Regulation of State Activity," and "State Enforcement of Federal Law," and on the side I have "Commerce Clause," "Spending Power," and "Tax Power." In each box, I have the rule or the framework of analysis. Each one of these is either some sort of brief checklist or a brief line or two stating the rule. On the exam, when if I see a statute where Congress is trying to regulate state activity via spending, I'll go to my "Spending Power, Federal Regulation of State Activity" box and know to apply the 4-part Dole test. I will then clearly articulate why the statute does, or does not, (or more aptly, may or may not) satisfy each prong. Easy as that.
The other thing you want to make sure you do on exams is state EVERYTHING that is essential to the issue. This doesn't mean to talk about things that don't matter; quite the contrary. It means to fully explain the things that do matter, and don't just assume things away without explaining your conclusion. If A punches B, don't just say "A is liable to B for battery because he punched him." Say "A intentionally punched B, which caused B to sustain a broken nose. Thus, A committed battery against B because he 1) intended to bring about harmful contact with another person and 2) harmful contact occurred." Do you see the difference there? The first line was just conclusory and did nothing in the way of legal analysis. A lot of people just look at the facts and think "Oh, A punched B so he committed battery" and they write this conclusive statement without making any reference to the elements of the crime. Battery is defined as "1) intending to bring about harmful or offensive conduct and 2) such harmful or offensive conduct occurs," so I want to make sure I apply the law (these two elements) to the facts that I have presented to me on the exam. ALWAYS weave the elements of the crime or the rule that you are applying into your answer.
If I can stress anything to you at this point, it is to just relax and breathe easy for now. You will do fine. When you get there in the fall, you should study the cases carefully, take good notes, and maybe even brief (although I find it to be worthless, but I did do it in the beginning). Then as you start to feel more comfortable, you can adjust your studying habits. Different things really do work for different folks. I have one friend who firmly believes that they NEVER should have to read the case, and he just uses supplements. He finished in the top 15% and nearly booked Torts without going to class or reading half the cases. I have another friend who finished in the top 10% who comes to class every day with detailed briefs of the cases. (This is a little nuts, IMO, but it works for her!) I fall somewhere in between these two. I read the cases, but I don't read them carefully. I just read them generally for the rules.
I guess what I am saying is that there are different strokes work for different folks. Hearing advice from law students is good, but it really doesn't fully sink in until you get there and witness it for yourself. I'd start out doing things "the right way" and then adjust as time goes along. But what you do during the semester is nowhere near as important as what you do in the last month, I really believe that. And I also believe that working insanely hard is nowhere near as important as figuring out what the professor wants and understanding how to attack their exam. So at this point, don't fret too much. It'll all come together for you.
Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate�
Users browsing this forum: amot123 and 9 guests