SMU 2011

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
Longhorn88
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:40 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby Longhorn88 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:26 pm

bergg007 wrote: SMU is a very good school but this forum makes me wonder about the experience I would get as a member of the student body. If this is the kind of discourse one could expect in the classes and amongst the students, I would be worried for anyone who does matriculate.

Thanks for helping me with my law school decision.


As many people prior have pointed out, SMU's student body is somewhat self-selecting in that they want to study business law. Thus, it makes sense that they out-place peer schools in that regard and have lower numbers for clerkships, etc. Yet, you somehow think you can extrapolate that principle to explain why another regional school in Atlanta would outplace SMU in its own market in a field (business) where it clearly excels. That is stupid. Thank god you're not going there next year as the rest of us 0L would likely have to put up with 4 months of drabble as you tried to explain your circular reasoning to the rest of the class.

Also, you're an idiot not because you're a moronic mormon who goes to a school where it's illegal to have a body piercing, or any other ad-hominem suggestions. You're an idiot because you cling to a poorly constructed argument that, when faced with a statistical evidence, falls to pieces. ps. Jimmer sucks.

User avatar
ebo
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: SMU 2011

Postby ebo » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:34 pm

Longhorn88 wrote:Also, you're an idiot not because you're a moronic mormon who goes to a school where it's illegal to have a body piercing, or any other ad-hominem suggestions. You're an idiot because you cling to a poorly constructed argument that, when faced with a statistical evidence, falls to pieces. ps. Jimmer sucks.

:roll: Are you trying to prove his point for him? His argument was bad enough on the surface that it could be attacked without taking any personal shots at religion.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: SMU 2011

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:42 pm

ebo wrote: :roll: Are you trying to prove his point for him? His argument was bad enough on the surface that it could be attacked without taking any personal shots at religion.



ebo is right. No need to take a shot at the guy's religion.

The problem with berg's "OMG, litigation centric Baylor has higher clerkship placement than SMU" argument is fairly evident. I still have a hunch that the guy wants to do some kind of corporate law yet he is focusing on clerkship placement as being relevant to his interests.... No way the guy is interested in litigation with his inability to handle the very mild heat in this thread.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby kalvano » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:00 pm

For what it's worth, I want a clerkship and to do public interest law. I get looked at funny by Career Services for these goals.

"Wait, you don't want to work for Vinson & Elkins or Jackson-Walker? We aren't sure what to do with you, strange creature. Begone from our sight and make hearty use of the Internet to answer thine queries."

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:05 pm

Longhorn88 wrote:
bergg007 wrote: SMU is a very good school but this forum makes me wonder about the experience I would get as a member of the student body. If this is the kind of discourse one could expect in the classes and amongst the students, I would be worried for anyone who does matriculate.

Thanks for helping me with my law school decision.


As many people prior have pointed out, SMU's student body is somewhat self-selecting in that they want to study business law. Thus, it makes sense that they out-place peer schools in that regard and have lower numbers for clerkships, etc. Yet, you somehow think you can extrapolate that principle to explain why another regional school in Atlanta would outplace SMU in its own market in a field (business) where it clearly excels. That is stupid. Thank god you're not going there next year as the rest of us 0L would likely have to put up with 4 months of drabble as you tried to explain your circular reasoning to the rest of the class.

Also, you're an idiot not because you're a moronic mormon who goes to a school where it's illegal to have a body piercing, or any other ad-hominem suggestions. You're an idiot because you cling to a poorly constructed argument that, when faced with a statistical evidence, falls to pieces. ps. Jimmer sucks.


I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment. I have no idea why 0Ls who plan on going to SMU get so defensive. This is like the reaction-against-"retake" syndrome.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: SMU 2011

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:08 pm

bartleby wrote:I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment. I have no idea why 0Ls who plan on going to SMU get so defensive. This is like the reaction-against-"retake" syndrome.


Please define "statisically crushed."

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:11 pm

nouseforaname123 wrote:
bartleby wrote:I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment. I have no idea why 0Ls who plan on going to SMU get so defensive. This is like the reaction-against-"retake" syndrome.


Please define "statisically crushed."


66% employment at graduation. Yeah, everyone took a hit. But 66% is pretty shitty.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby kalvano » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:12 pm

bartleby wrote:I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment.



Most schools got crushed in terms of employment. I don't understand why you single out SMU.

Even some of the most respected schools out there can't claim 100% or even above 95%.

I mean, at least we are better than Emory. And Tulane. And UNC. And others that I didn't care to search.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:16 pm

kalvano wrote:
bartleby wrote:I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment.



Most schools got crushed in terms of employment. I don't understand why you single out SMU.

Even some of the most respected schools out there can't claim 100% or even above 95%.

I mean, at least we are better than Emory. And Tulane. And UNC. And others that I didn't care to search.


I only "single out" SMU because I'm posting the SMU thread. And because 0Ls keep saying how strong the career prospects are for the overwhelming business law self-selecting student body. For a school that shares Dallas only with UT, 66% is concerning.

Additionally, 66% becomes even more concerning when you count all the students who come from real money, couldn't get into UT or chose to stay in Dallas, and have connections that you don't have.

Last edit: I hope I'm not coming off as "hating"...I hope I am just being cynical and scrutinizing a big decision in all our lives.
Last edited by bartleby on Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: SMU 2011

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:19 pm

bartleby wrote:
nouseforaname123 wrote:
bartleby wrote:I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment. I have no idea why 0Ls who plan on going to SMU get so defensive. This is like the reaction-against-"retake" syndrome.


Please define "statisically crushed."


66% employment at graduation. Yeah, everyone took a hit. But 66% is pretty shitty.


Yet SMU's NLJ 250 placement is still highest amongst any school on your LSN profile. Why the focus on one employment metric?
Last edited by nouseforaname123 on Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: SMU 2011

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:20 pm

bartleby wrote:Additionally, 66% becomes even more concerning when you count all the students who come from real money, couldn't get into UT or chose to stay in Dallas, and have connections that you don't have.


Where exactly do you get this from? I've been on campus for 2 years and am yet to see the nepotism you and berg are implying.

User avatar
ebo
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: SMU 2011

Postby ebo » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:22 pm

bartleby wrote:
nouseforaname123 wrote:
bartleby wrote:I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment. I have no idea why 0Ls who plan on going to SMU get so defensive. This is like the reaction-against-"retake" syndrome.


Please define "statisically crushed."


66% employment at graduation. Yeah, everyone took a hit. But 66% is pretty shitty.

Well where do you want to practice? This really isn't difficult. If it's Houston, then go to UH. If it's Georgia, go to UGA. If it's Dallas, go to SMU. If none of those options appeal to you, then I guess retake the LSAT and apply next cycle for better schools. We've all seen the 66% figure, but as Kalvano pointed out, many schools (including several that are ranked higher than SMU) took a hit this year- this isn't a problem that is specific to SMU

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:23 pm

nouseforaname123 wrote:
bartleby wrote:Additionally, 66% becomes even more concerning when you count all the students who come from real money, couldn't get into UT or chose to stay in Dallas, and have connections that you don't have.


Where exactly do you get this from? I've been on campus for 2 years and am yet to see the nepotism you and berg are implying.


I don't know, actually. I just assume that the people who can pony up 42,000 a year and also live in old money oil world might overlap.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby kalvano » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:25 pm

bartleby wrote:I only "single out" SMU because I'm posting the SMU thread. And because 0Ls keep saying how strong the career prospects are for the overwhelming business law self-selecting student body. For a school that shares Dallas only with UT, 66% is concerning.

Additionally, 66% becomes even more concerning when you count all the students who come from real money, couldn't get into UT or chose to stay in Dallas, and have connections that you don't have.

Last edit: I hope I'm not coming off as "hating"...I hope I am just being cynical and scrutinizing a big decision in all our lives.



Money doesn't equal intelligence, and as far as I know, SMU only reserves 4 or 5 slots for people who buy their way in.

Again, the data that is being used in the USNWR ranking is based on the absolute worst economy in recent memory. You couldn't even find a job flipping burgers around here, no matter how much the media paints Dallas as some sort of promised land. Everything was frozen in terms of hiring. Even car dealerships weren't hiring new salespeople, and they are always hiring.

The way you keep hammering on that is sort of like saying "because a plane crashed once, I am never flying again." Every single school's employment percentage dropped, except for maybe the top 3. Every single one. Some even more massive than SMU. I would say it's a statistical anomaly, but we know what caused it. If you still think the economy is going to be like that in 4 years, then just skip law school altogether.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:26 pm

ebo wrote:
bartleby wrote:
nouseforaname123 wrote:
bartleby wrote:I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment. I have no idea why 0Ls who plan on going to SMU get so defensive. This is like the reaction-against-"retake" syndrome.


Please define "statisically crushed."


66% employment at graduation. Yeah, everyone took a hit. But 66% is pretty shitty.

Well where do you want to practice? This really isn't difficult. If it's Houston, then go to UH. If it's Georgia, go to UGA. If it's Dallas, go to SMU. If none of those options appeal to you, then I guess retake the LSAT and apply next cycle for better schools. We've all seen the 66% figure, but as Kalvano pointed out, many schools (including several that are ranked higher than SMU) took a hit this year- this isn't a problem that is specific to SMU


Yeah, I'm going to UGA. It was a hard decision. I think Dallas is cool. I think SMU is a quality school. I was just pointing out some scary stats - that are scary regardless of how many other schools share similar ones. I just jumped in because other 0Ls were being crazy gung ho / aggressive about how awesome SMU is.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: SMU 2011

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:31 pm

bartleby wrote:Yeah, I'm going to UGA. It was a hard decision. I think Dallas is cool. I think SMU is a quality school. I was just pointing out some scary stats - that are scary regardless of how many other schools share similar ones. I just jumped in because other 0Ls were being crazy gung ho / aggressive about how awesome SMU is.



Well, now we know who to call if we need to keep it real. Thanks, bro.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:34 pm

nouseforaname123 wrote:
bartleby wrote:Yeah, I'm going to UGA. It was a hard decision. I think Dallas is cool. I think SMU is a quality school. I was just pointing out some scary stats - that are scary regardless of how many other schools share similar ones. I just jumped in because other 0Ls were being crazy gung ho / aggressive about how awesome SMU is.



Well, now we know who to call if we need to keep it real. Thanks, bro.


You are welcome, my bro.

Also, if I decide to go to SMU, I won't post it here - less the TLS Pony Stampede trample me.

deliriousxix
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:44 pm

Re: SMU 2011

Postby deliriousxix » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:56 pm

this thread is providing me great entertainment at work right now :) thanks guys.

User avatar
JRDallas11
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:03 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby JRDallas11 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:07 pm

bartleby wrote:
nouseforaname123 wrote:
bartleby wrote:I think the point is for a school that is all about "business law," it got statistically crushed in terms of employment. I have no idea why 0Ls who plan on going to SMU get so defensive. This is like the reaction-against-"retake" syndrome.


Please define "statisically crushed."


66% employment at graduation. Yeah, everyone took a hit. But 66% is pretty shitty.


Placing so much emphasis on employment stats is naive. If you're smart and personable, you'll get a good job (in law). If you're lazy, socially awkward and/or obnoxious, then you need to go to a school with 100% employment after graduation.

You very well may be smart and personable, however, the tone of your posts are not very personable.

I'm 33, I grew up in Dallas and I own a real estate firm where many of my clients are attorneys and partners at most of the major law firms in Dallas. So it's easy for me to say I'm not too concerned about job prospects after law school. On the other end of this spectrum, why would a fresh-out-of-undergrad with virtually no business contacts, who has only lived in Dallas for 3 years, expect to land a job because of where you got your degree?

There's more to it than that and you know it. (Sleeping around?) So enough employment % talk.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:21 pm

I can own a real estate firm too in the world of wide web. Now the same people who place emphasis on SMU's NALP #27 and their above-average transparent median public and private salaries want to write off these stats. And your assumptions from reading my message board posts are right: I am lazy, socially awkward, and have a terrible attitude.

User avatar
JRDallas11
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:03 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby JRDallas11 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:31 pm

bartleby wrote:I can own a real estate firm too in the world of wide web. Now the same people who place emphasis on SMU's NALP #27 and their above-average transparent median public and private salaries want to write off these stats. And your assumptions from reading my message board posts are right: I am lazy, socially awkward, and have a terrible attitude.


I'm sorry you didn't read my post more thoroughly. I never said (or assumed) you were lazy, socially awkward, or have a terrible attitude. I was sharing with you an example of how the real world works. Now I just feel sorry for you.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:36 pm

JRDallas11 wrote:
bartleby wrote:I can own a real estate firm too in the world of wide web. Now the same people who place emphasis on SMU's NALP #27 and their above-average transparent median public and private salaries want to write off these stats. And your assumptions from reading my message board posts are right: I am lazy, socially awkward, and have a terrible attitude.


I'm sorry you didn't read my post more thoroughly. I never said (or assumed) you were lazy, socially awkward, or have a terrible attitude. I was sharing with you an example of how the real world works. Now I just feel sorry for you.


Thanks. Your assumptions from reading my message posts are right: I don't know how the real world works. I need you to feel sorry for me.

User avatar
JRDallas11
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:03 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby JRDallas11 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:42 pm

bartleby wrote:
JRDallas11 wrote:
bartleby wrote:I can own a real estate firm too in the world of wide web. Now the same people who place emphasis on SMU's NALP #27 and their above-average transparent median public and private salaries want to write off these stats. And your assumptions from reading my message board posts are right: I am lazy, socially awkward, and have a terrible attitude.


I'm sorry you didn't read my post more thoroughly. I never said (or assumed) you were lazy, socially awkward, or have a terrible attitude. I was sharing with you an example of how the real world works. Now I just feel sorry for you.


Thanks. Your assumptions from reading my message posts are right: I don't know how the real world works. I need you to feel sorry for me.


You need to go to UGA. You're out of your league. Something else you need to know about Texans is that we're polite - until you give us a reason to put a boot up your ass.

Like the socially awkward and naive kid you are, you'll likely continue your anonymous muckraking because you need to feel better about yourself.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby bartleby » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:45 pm

JRDallas11 wrote:
bartleby wrote:
JRDallas11 wrote:
bartleby wrote:I can own a real estate firm too in the world of wide web. Now the same people who place emphasis on SMU's NALP #27 and their above-average transparent median public and private salaries want to write off these stats. And your assumptions from reading my message board posts are right: I am lazy, socially awkward, and have a terrible attitude.


I'm sorry you didn't read my post more thoroughly. I never said (or assumed) you were lazy, socially awkward, or have a terrible attitude. I was sharing with you an example of how the real world works. Now I just feel sorry for you.


Thanks. Your assumptions from reading my message posts are right: I don't know how the real world works. I need you to feel sorry for me.


You need to go to UGA. You're out of your league. Something else you need to know about Texans is that we're polite - until you give us a reason to put a boot up your ass.

Like the socially awkward and naive kid you are, you'll likely continue your anonymous muckraking because you need to feel better about yourself.


Maybe responding to legit concerns about a school with personal attacks was cool in 70's. Thanks for the virtual boot in the ass.

User avatar
JRDallas11
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:03 am

Re: SMU 2011

Postby JRDallas11 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:50 pm

I was born in '78. Math is power, my friend. Now it's time for me to leave the sandbox. But I'll always remember our time together.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lillawyer2, mccracal, siyuanff and 6 guests