Top Law Schools

Do students at other schools argue about literally everything or is this a WUSTL-specific phenomenon?

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote:
Isn't an A- basically median? Maybe they've killed the grade inflation since I graduated.

Some of us are satisfied with median grades. Some of us aren't autistic gunners banking on biglaw giving meaning to their pathetic, miserable existences. Some of us have thousands of posts on Top-Law-Schools.com and live for percentile cutoffs.

I take it you're shooting for public interest work.

Things you are unlikely to get from Wustl at median:

Private firm job
Decent clerkship
In house job

What exactly is your goal at the end of the rainbow?

Idk, I def think private firms are doable outside of big/"mid" law.

acr wrote:Do students at other schools argue about literally everything or is this a WUSTL-specific phenomenon?

Law students generally suck and argue about dumb shit. This entire forum is a testament to that, despite how helpful it can be at times.

If you mean on here, aside from the past month this thread has been relatively chill.

sublime wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote:
Isn't an A- basically median? Maybe they've killed the grade inflation since I graduated.

Some of us are satisfied with median grades. Some of us aren't autistic gunners banking on biglaw giving meaning to their pathetic, miserable existences. Some of us have thousands of posts on Top-Law-Schools.com and live for percentile cutoffs.

I take it you're shooting for public interest work.

Things you are unlikely to get from Wustl at median:

Private firm job
Decent clerkship
In house job

What exactly is your goal at the end of the rainbow?

Idk, I def think private firms are doable outside of big/"mid" law.

It's possible, but unlikely. Large firms do almost all of the hiring of new grads. Midlaw firms tend to hire very few, and most small firms won't even consider new grads. If you want to start at a private firm, biglaw is your best bet because their business model incorporates absorbing the cost of training brand new lawyers.

ETA: A decent analogy would be comparing the NYC legal market to any other legal market in the country. Are there jobs elsewhere? Sure, but not nearly as many as in that one, hyperconcentrated legal market.

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

sublime wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote:
Isn't an A- basically median? Maybe they've killed the grade inflation since I graduated.

Some of us are satisfied with median grades. Some of us aren't autistic gunners banking on biglaw giving meaning to their pathetic, miserable existences. Some of us have thousands of posts on Top-Law-Schools.com and live for percentile cutoffs.

I take it you're shooting for public interest work.

Things you are unlikely to get from Wustl at median:

Private firm job
Decent clerkship
In house job

What exactly is your goal at the end of the rainbow?

Idk, I def think private firms are doable outside of big/"mid" law.

It's possible, but unlikely. Large firms do almost all of the hiring of new grads. Midlaw firms tend to hire very few, and most small firms won't even consider new grads. If you want to start at a private firm, biglaw is your best bet because their business model incorporates absorbing the cost of training brand new lawyers.

I get what you are saying, but the LST data seems to rebut it. It looks like a full 20ish% of the class went to smaller firms:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... yers/2015/

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote:
Isn't an A- basically median? Maybe they've killed the grade inflation since I graduated.

Some of us are satisfied with median grades. Some of us aren't autistic gunners banking on biglaw giving meaning to their pathetic, miserable existences. Some of us have thousands of posts on Top-Law-Schools.com and live for percentile cutoffs.

I take it you're shooting for public interest work.

Things you are unlikely to get from Wustl at median:

Private firm job
Decent clerkship
In house job

What exactly is your goal at the end of the rainbow?

Rainbow, eh? Nice subtle condescension. My goal is private firm. If what you're saying is true, then 50% or more of the WUSTL class either gets nothing or does PI/GOV work. But I'm the one believing in fantasy.

cm_burns wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote:
Isn't an A- basically median? Maybe they've killed the grade inflation since I graduated.

Some of us are satisfied with median grades. Some of us aren't autistic gunners banking on biglaw giving meaning to their pathetic, miserable existences. Some of us have thousands of posts on Top-Law-Schools.com and live for percentile cutoffs.

I take it you're shooting for public interest work.

Things you are unlikely to get from Wustl at median:

Private firm job
Decent clerkship
In house job

What exactly is your goal at the end of the rainbow?

Rainbow, eh? Nice subtle condescension. My goal is private firm. If what you're saying is true, then 50% or more of the WUSTL class either gets nothing or does PI/GOV work. But I'm the one believing in fantasy.

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/20 ... ngton.html
See above for angry man's perspective on the subject of outcomes from WUSTL.

sublime wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

sublime wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote:
Isn't an A- basically median? Maybe they've killed the grade inflation since I graduated.

Some of us are satisfied with median grades. Some of us aren't autistic gunners banking on biglaw giving meaning to their pathetic, miserable existences. Some of us have thousands of posts on Top-Law-Schools.com and live for percentile cutoffs.

I take it you're shooting for public interest work.

Things you are unlikely to get from Wustl at median:

Private firm job
Decent clerkship
In house job

What exactly is your goal at the end of the rainbow?

Idk, I def think private firms are doable outside of big/"mid" law.

It's possible, but unlikely. Large firms do almost all of the hiring of new grads. Midlaw firms tend to hire very few, and most small firms won't even consider new grads. If you want to start at a private firm, biglaw is your best bet because their business model incorporates absorbing the cost of training brand new lawyers.

I get what you are saying, but the LST data seems to rebut it. It looks like a full 20ish% of the class went to smaller firms:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... yers/2015/

Wouldn't have guessed that. My perspective is also likely skewed based on my home market, which almost certainly isn't broadly representative of anything.

I retract.

Median from wustl can definitely get firm jobs.

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

sublime wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

sublime wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote:
Isn't an A- basically median? Maybe they've killed the grade inflation since I graduated.

Some of us are satisfied with median grades. Some of us aren't autistic gunners banking on biglaw giving meaning to their pathetic, miserable existences. Some of us have thousands of posts on Top-Law-Schools.com and live for percentile cutoffs.

I take it you're shooting for public interest work.

Things you are unlikely to get from Wustl at median:

Private firm job
Decent clerkship
In house job

What exactly is your goal at the end of the rainbow?

Idk, I def think private firms are doable outside of big/"mid" law.

It's possible, but unlikely. Large firms do almost all of the hiring of new grads. Midlaw firms tend to hire very few, and most small firms won't even consider new grads. If you want to start at a private firm, biglaw is your best bet because their business model incorporates absorbing the cost of training brand new lawyers.

I get what you are saying, but the LST data seems to rebut it. It looks like a full 20ish% of the class went to smaller firms:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... yers/2015/

Wouldn't have guessed that. My perspective is also likely skewed based on my home market, which almost certainly isn't broadly representative of anything.

I retract.

I retract? I'm not sure where your home market is, but if you talked like that in my home market of Detroit you'd get slapped at least. Maybe even killed.

cm_burns wrote:I retract? I'm not sure where your home market is, but if you talked like that in my home market of Detroit you'd get slapped at least. Maybe even killed.

Settle down there skippy.

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote:I retract? I'm not sure where your home market is, but if you talked like that in my home market of Detroit you'd get slapped at least. Maybe even killed.

Settle down there skippy.

Nah, he's gotta establish himself as a snitch first, at minimum.

cm_burns wrote:

Joscellin wrote:

xxLawSchoolIsHardxx wrote:

Joscellin wrote:

whatwhatinthebutt wrote:

valen wrote:

whatwhatinthebutt wrote:Chemerinsky is a hornbook law hack who sells students a false narrative of black letter constitutional law, which doesn't exist. If you read his supplements you'll have no clue how the Supreme Court actually works and Satan will rule the Earth. Don't do it kids.

Someone was in Con Law with Professor Law

At one point during class he analogized Chemerinsky to smack. Law was entertaining. Great class, but I think a lot of people missed how tongue-in-cheek he was.

Chemerinsky is like Sara Lee. It'll make a perfectly adequate 'B' cake, but never an A+ cake

Would you rather have a 'B' cake with some nice layers, or a 2.68 cake with a pile of shit on top of it?

I'll keep my 'pay attention, read, and take good notes' 'A' cake, thanks.

I received an A- in con law heavily relying on Cherminsky, ass. There's no need to condescend, not everyone has the same study habits or learning style. You must be K-JD and not know you can get hurt over things like this in real life situations.

Misdirected anger, much?

a.) This was a discussion about Prof. Law's class vis-a-vis Chemerinsky, not Con Law in general.

b.) Within the text you directly quoted, I stated that a B is perfectly adequate.

c.) An A- is nowhere close to an A+ on the WUSTL curve, and that's okay.

d.) This was a response to the implication that if you don't use Supplements/Chemerinsky then you're doomed to a 2.68. I was merely pointing out that proper study can do perfectly well, as well. Supplements are not mandatory. Do you, boo.

e.) Lol, is K-JD supposed to be an insult? And why would being a K-JD or not have any bearing on the decision to use supplements or not? This is an odd non-sequitur.

ETA: An especially odd non-sequitur since you seem to condescend to half the students at the school immediately after saying 'there's no need to condescend.'

cm_burns wrote: I received an A- in con law heavily relying on Cherminsky, ass. There's no need to condescend, not everyone has the same study habits or learning style. You must be K-JD and not know you can get hurt over things like this in real life situations.

I missed this somehow. I have no idea what personal issues you have going on, but chill the fuck out. No one having a discussion about law school grades or study habits is going to get physically violent over it, unless maybe you will, in which case you should probably work on that.

cm_burns wrote: I received an A- in con law heavily relying on Cherminsky, ass. There's no need to condescend, not everyone has the same study habits or learning style. You must be K-JD and not know you can get hurt over things like this in real life situations.

You are (maybe) outing yourself with your comments, very, very few people at Wustl talk like this

About to buy a used book, do I need the 'online code' for law school?

aspire2esquire wrote:About to buy a used book, do I need the 'online code' for law school?

nope

Nothing is more stressful than interviewing with an A- on your transcript. I had an A- in Civ Pro and I absolutely got grilled by this woman from Unicef. She asked me cynical questions like if I took my studies seriously. Then she asked me to recite the principal cases of the Erie Doctrine. It was rough, but thankfully I have an excellent memory.

FuturePaulClement wrote:Nothing is more stressful than interviewing with an A- on your transcript. I had an A- in Civ Pro and I absolutely got grilled by this woman from Unicef. She asked me cynical questions like if I took my studies seriously. Then she asked me to recite the principal cases of the Erie Doctrine. It was rough, but thankfully I have an excellent memory.

I intentionally spelled it as "Eerie Doctrine" on my exam. That Gasparini/Shady Grove combo is a real doozy. Excited to talk about it with my interviewer as I avoid eye contact at my next screener, no doubt.

Jmart082 wrote:

FuturePaulClement wrote:Nothing is more stressful than interviewing with an A- on your transcript. I had an A- in Civ Pro and I absolutely got grilled by this woman from Unicef. She asked me cynical questions like if I took my studies seriously. Then she asked me to recite the principal cases of the Erie Doctrine. It was rough, but thankfully I have an excellent memory.

I intentionally spelled it as "Eerie Doctrine" on my exam. That Gasparini/Shady Grove combo is a real doozy. Excited to talk about it with my interviewer as I avoid eye contact at my next screener, no doubt.

I have the same problem. Prolonged eye contact makes me nervous so I generally try to avoid it. However, numerous studies have shown that eye contact gives interviewers the impression of confidence more than any other factor. Accordingly, I always maintain direct, uninterrupted eye contact with my screener for the duration of the interview. I recommend our rising 2Ls do the same.

FuturePaulClement wrote:

Jmart082 wrote:

FuturePaulClement wrote:Nothing is more stressful than interviewing with an A- on your transcript. I had an A- in Civ Pro and I absolutely got grilled by this woman from Unicef. She asked me cynical questions like if I took my studies seriously. Then she asked me to recite the principal cases of the Erie Doctrine. It was rough, but thankfully I have an excellent memory.

I intentionally spelled it as "Eerie Doctrine" on my exam. That Gasparini/Shady Grove combo is a real doozy. Excited to talk about it with my interviewer as I avoid eye contact at my next screener, no doubt.

I have the same problem. Prolonged eye contact makes me nervous so I generally try to avoid it. However, numerous studies have shown that eye contact gives interviewers the impression of confidence more than any other factor. Accordingly, I always maintain direct, uninterrupted eye contact with my screener for the duration of the interview. I recommend our rising 2Ls do the same.

Careful with that. Some of the firms I've interviewed with have started throwing in a curveball into their screening process by having the initial screener conducted by the firm's designated hottie. Prolonged eye contact in this situation may give the impression that you're imposing the "male gaze" on her, as opposed to projecting confidence..

Edit: Moved to different (more relevant) thread

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cm_burns wrote: I received an A- in con law heavily relying on Cherminsky, ass. There's no need to condescend, not everyone has the same study habits or learning style. You must be K-JD and not know you can get hurt over things like this in real life situations.

I missed this somehow. I have no idea what personal issues you have going on, but chill the fuck out. No one having a discussion about law school grades or study habits is going to get physically violent over it, unless maybe you will, in which case you should probably work on that.

In real life if someone is saying "I'm happy with the A- I got in Con law" and a person they don't know jumps in and says "A- is essentially median, median grades get you nothing from Wash U!", certain things can happen from there. You could get yourself into a certain type of situation. Either you're oblivious because of a sheletered upbringing, or are talking slick behind the safety of a computer. There's no need to be a jerk.

Jmart082 wrote:

FuturePaulClement wrote:

Jmart082 wrote:

FuturePaulClement wrote:Nothing is more stressful than interviewing with an A- on your transcript. I had an A- in Civ Pro and I absolutely got grilled by this woman from Unicef. She asked me cynical questions like if I took my studies seriously. Then she asked me to recite the principal cases of the Erie Doctrine. It was rough, but thankfully I have an excellent memory.

I intentionally spelled it as "Eerie Doctrine" on my exam. That Gasparini/Shady Grove combo is a real doozy. Excited to talk about it with my interviewer as I avoid eye contact at my next screener, no doubt.

I have the same problem. Prolonged eye contact makes me nervous so I generally try to avoid it. However, numerous studies have shown that eye contact gives interviewers the impression of confidence more than any other factor. Accordingly, I always maintain direct, uninterrupted eye contact with my screener for the duration of the interview. I recommend our rising 2Ls do the same.

Careful with that. Some of the firms I've interviewed with have started throwing in a curveball into their screening process by having the initial screener conducted by the firm's designated hottie. Prolonged eye contact in this situation may give the impression that you're imposing the "male gaze" on her, as opposed to projecting confidence..

Get out of here with your sexist trash talk. Screeners are people too ya know.

cm_burns wrote: In real life if someone is saying "I'm happy with the A- I got in Con law" and a person they don't know jumps in and says "A- is essentially median, median grades get you nothing from Wash U!", certain things can happen from there. You could get yourself into a certain type of situation. Either you're oblivious because of a sheletered upbringing, or are talking slick behind the safety of a computer. There's no need to be a jerk.

First, I only said the first part of the bolded, not the second. I certainly wasn't deriding medial grades, which are, by definition, the expected outcome.

Second, this "real life" you refer to must either be a jail yard or a grade school playground.