What's your Opinion?

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
nyclawguy
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 am

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby nyclawguy » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:52 pm

Some more:

bk1 wrote:Stop measuring yourself based on the letters behind your name and who else has those letters. Instead actually do something.

You care about TTT/TTTT for the wrong reason. Caring about them because they let anybody get a JD is misdirected. Caring about them because they pump out too many JD's relative to the number of jobs that require them is on the right track.


bk1, I think you miss the crux of my argument. That people who attend ANY law school should not ride off the "esq." after their name is a given; ANY lawyer should do something with their degree. My point, however, was to pose the question as to whether or not there are certain individuals who just should not be going to law school. Going back to the med school example: if as an undergraduate you failed or barely passed bio, chem, and orgo, do you really think that med school (which requires a cursory knowledge of all of these subjects...hence the reason they are pre-med) is for you? If someone can barely squeeze out a C+ cum-GPA from undergrad, are they suited to meet the intellectual rigors of being a GOOD attorney? This may sound harsh, but I think it's a valid point.

NJcollegestudent wrote:We should be focusing on bringing equality, rather than reinforcing class divides among society.


I find this reponse to be inherently illogical. Applying to individual law schools is by its very nature unequal; that's why some people get in, and some don't. In essence, what your suggesting is that anyone should be able to get into whatever law school they want, for the sake of a fairly idealistic "equality".


Emma1 wrote:Thank quality rather than prestige. Stop opening up TTT Law schools.


Spot on. If 25% of the student body of a particular law school cannot hold a 2.48 GPA as an undergrad, how are they going to fare in a discipline that is far more rigorous by its very nature?

JakeL
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:30 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby JakeL » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:21 pm

slax wrote:
nyclawguy wrote:I have been a semi-frequent visitor to TLS for quite some time. While I’ve only ever posted on the site on 3 or 4 occasions, I find it a great place to find information regarding the application process, and law school more generally. Nevertheless, in the course of my perusing, I’ve always been a bit perturbed by those posts in which people ask to have other users “chance them”, and have fairly deplorable numbers. Before I continue on, I am more than aware of the fact that numbers aren’t everything (I especially feel this way with the LSAT since I don’t believe that a four hour test is necessarily indicative of how one will do in law school or as a practicing attorney), but with that said, I think there is something to be said for one’s GPA (four years of sustained study, presumably on a topic that a person finds intellectually stimulating). Also, I do recognize that as it pertains to GPA, instances arise where students have a crisis that impacts their grades for a semester or longer (or even on occasion, just a really difficult class/course of study). And of course, one’s “soft” factors must be taken into account; there is certainly something to be said for students who hold a job during their undergraduate careers, are heavily involved in community service/leadership activities, who publish articles, win awards, etc.

Nevertheless, despite all of these aforementioned considerations, I cannot help but feel that in the United States today, anyone who wants to go to law school, can (I stop short of saying “become an attorney” because passing the bar is still a fairly formidable obstacle). Fifty years ago, there was something to be said for being a lawyer; it implied a sense of intelligence (true, academic intelligence—not “life experience”), and carried with it a degree of prestige. Going to law school was hard work, and not every John Doe who liked to argue, enjoyed politics, and was in student council went on to pursue a legal education. However, as the decades have gone by, I feel as if the industry has begun to corrode (quite precipitously), and I feel that this problem lies with the proliferation of law schools that really have no place issuing JDs. The 25th percentile GPA/LSAT of Southern University (which appears to be the lowest ranked school on TLS) is 2.48 and 143 respectively. Graduating with a 2.48 (and mind you, 25% of the class at this particular school has LESS than a 2.48) is slightly better than a C+ average, and on the October 2010 test, a 143 meant that you answered 45 out of 101 questions correctly (and again, 25% of the class at this school scored even worse). Looking at these statistics this way begs the question as to whether or not a student with those statistics (or worse) has any place practicing law. I asked a family member of mine who is the director of hiring for a clothing company if she would ever hire someone with a 2.48 GPA, and her answer was an unequivocal “no”.

No, not everyone is a gunner who shoots for the t14 or has aspirations of working at Wachtell or Cravath. Many people are more than content (and have wonderfully successful careers) practicing law at boutique firms or working as sole practitioners. Yet regardless of where you attend law school, or where you eventually practice, being a lawyer requires intelligence. The law is inherently complex, reading legalese can be worse than hyroglifics, and legal research can be a grueling undertaking. I cannot help but think that to do all of these things well (emphasis on well) one must be smarter than average. I remember going to an attorney’s office when my parents closed on their new home and left mortified that I wanted to pursue a career in law, because of the ineptitude, incompetence, and unintelligence of the man signing the coveted “Esq.” after his name. When I asked casually asked him what law school he attended, I was unsurprised by his answer.

I post this not to place myself on a pedestal or appear arrogant, but instead to foster a legitimate and respectful (emphasis on respectful) dialogue. I have always been drawn to the legal profession, and have always felt as if being a lawyer was predicated upon being smart, articulate, and disciplined. However, as I read through many of these “chance me” posts, look at statistics from 3rd and 4th tier law schools, and see many lawyers who practice outside of “big-law”, I can’t help but feel as if being a lawyer isn’t all that much to be proud of anymore. In the not too distant past, identifying yourself as an attorney automatically conveyed (the vast majority of the time) very specific characteristics about yourself. I do not feel as if the same can be said today. Unless you are remarkably inept or have a criminal record, I feel as if virtually anyone can receive their JD. I am worried about where this profession will end up in another fifty years. I seek the opinions of others, but I truly ask that the tone be respectful and constructive.



+1. You couldn't manage a 3.0 in undergrad but think you'll be in the top 10% at a TTT and get a legit job. This is why Americans are in such deep debt.


I don't think it's that far fetched that someone who dicked off through college and got a 2.8, could get top 10% at a TTT. They likely would have scored higher on their LSAT though...

User avatar
slax
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby slax » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:32 pm

JakeL wrote:
slax wrote:
nyclawguy wrote: Rant.



+1. You couldn't manage a 3.0 in undergrad but think you'll be in the top 10% at a TTT and get a legit job. This is why Americans are in such deep debt.


I don't think it's that far fetched that someone who dicked off through college and got a 2.8, could get top 10% at a TTT. They likely would have scored higher on their LSAT though...


I agree that it's possible. "And even if those Cowboys are better than you guys, even if they beat you 99 times out of 100, that still leaves..."

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby bk1 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:04 pm

nyclawguy wrote:bk1, I think you miss the crux of my argument. That people who attend ANY law school should not ride off the "esq." after their name is a given; ANY lawyer should do something with their degree. My point, however, was to pose the question as to whether or not there are certain individuals who just should not be going to law school. Going back to the med school example: if as an undergraduate you failed or barely passed bio, chem, and orgo, do you really think that med school (which requires a cursory knowledge of all of these subjects...hence the reason they are pre-med) is for you? If someone can barely squeeze out a C+ cum-GPA from undergrad, are they suited to meet the intellectual rigors of being a GOOD attorney? This may sound harsh, but I think it's a valid point.


You feel that dumbasses going to law school drags down the profession, or at least that's what your OP implied. I said that you should stop giving 2 shits about what type of other people are trying to enter the profession because it doesn't really matter.

Who are you to determine who should go and who should not? What standard do we use here? Why do you think undergrad GPA is even a proxy for this considering there many schools and many majors where it isn't very difficult and others where it is? Are you going to slam somebody for being lazy in undergrad who then proceeds to kick the shit out of law school and do well as an attorney?

Even more on point, is document review intellectually rigorous? Is grinding out 2000-3000 billable hours as a biglaw associate intellectually rigorous? What do you mean by the "intellectual rigors of being a GOOD attorney?"

It really seems like you have some vaulted opinion of lawyers and the law as some sacred intellectual circlejerk and that plebes coming in and joining that circlejerk is destroying the sanctity of the profession.

User avatar
slax
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby slax » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:08 pm

bk1 wrote:
nyclawguy wrote:You are wrong. :wink:


No you are wrong and you are not entitled to have this opinion :evil: :twisted: .


Shit just got serious. Poppin my popcorn now.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby bk1 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:11 pm

slax wrote:
bk1 wrote:
nyclawguy wrote:You are wrong. :wink:


No you are wrong and you are not entitled to have this opinion :evil: :twisted: .


Shit just got serious. Poppin my popcorn now.

I'm glad you attached the appropriate levels of vim and vigor to our respective posts. :)

User avatar
slax
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby slax » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:16 pm

bk1 wrote:
slax wrote:
bk1 wrote:
nyclawguy wrote:You are wrong. :wink:


No you are wrong and you are not entitled to have this opinion :evil: :twisted: .


Shit just got serious. Poppin my popcorn now.

I'm glad you attached the appropriate levels of vim and vigor to our respective posts. :)


I just had to look up the word vim. Withdrawing all my apps now. I'm not meant for law school :P

User avatar
LilMonsterAnnie
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:56 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby LilMonsterAnnie » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:25 pm

nyclawguy wrote:I have been a semi-frequent visitor to TLS for quite some time. While I’ve only ever posted on the site on 3 or 4 occasions, I find it a great place to find information regarding the application process, and law school more generally. Nevertheless, in the course of my perusing, I’ve always been a bit perturbed by those posts in which people ask to have other users “chance them”, and have fairly deplorable numbers. Before I continue on, I am more than aware of the fact that numbers aren’t everything (I especially feel this way with the LSAT since I don’t believe that a four hour test is necessarily indicative of how one will do in law school or as a practicing attorney), but with that said, I think there is something to be said for one’s GPA (four years of sustained study, presumably on a topic that a person finds intellectually stimulating). Also, I do recognize that as it pertains to GPA, instances arise where students have a crisis that impacts their grades for a semester or longer (or even on occasion, just a really difficult class/course of study). And of course, one’s “soft” factors must be taken into account; there is certainly something to be said for students who hold a job during their undergraduate careers, are heavily involved in community service/leadership activities, who publish articles, win awards, etc.

Nevertheless, despite all of these aforementioned considerations, I cannot help but feel that in the United States today, anyone who wants to go to law school, can (I stop short of saying “become an attorney” because passing the bar is still a fairly formidable obstacle). Fifty years ago, there was something to be said for being a lawyer; it implied a sense of intelligence (true, academic intelligence—not “life experience”), and carried with it a degree of prestige. Going to law school was hard work, and not every John Doe who liked to argue, enjoyed politics, and was in student council went on to pursue a legal education. However, as the decades have gone by, I feel as if the industry has begun to corrode (quite precipitously), and I feel that this problem lies with the proliferation of law schools that really have no place issuing JDs. The 25th percentile GPA/LSAT of Southern University (which appears to be the lowest ranked school on TLS) is 2.48 and 143 respectively. Graduating with a 2.48 (and mind you, 25% of the class at this particular school has LESS than a 2.48) is slightly better than a C+ average, and on the October 2010 test, a 143 meant that you answered 45 out of 101 questions correctly (and again, 25% of the class at this school scored even worse). Looking at these statistics this way begs the question as to whether or not a student with those statistics (or worse) has any place practicing law. I asked a family member of mine who is the director of hiring for a clothing company if she would ever hire someone with a 2.48 GPA, and her answer was an unequivocal “no”.

No, not everyone is a gunner who shoots for the t14 or has aspirations of working at Wachtell or Cravath. Many people are more than content (and have wonderfully successful careers) practicing law at boutique firms or working as sole practitioners. Yet regardless of where you attend law school, or where you eventually practice, being a lawyer requires intelligence. The law is inherently complex, reading legalese can be worse than hyroglifics, and legal research can be a grueling undertaking. I cannot help but think that to do all of these things well (emphasis on well) one must be smarter than average. I remember going to an attorney’s office when my parents closed on their new home and left mortified that I wanted to pursue a career in law, because of the ineptitude, incompetence, and unintelligence of the man signing the coveted “Esq.” after his name. When I asked casually asked him what law school he attended, I was unsurprised by his answer.

I post this not to place myself on a pedestal or appear arrogant, but instead to foster a legitimate and respectful (emphasis on respectful) dialogue. I have always been drawn to the legal profession, and have always felt as if being a lawyer was predicated upon being smart, articulate, and disciplined. However, as I read through many of these “chance me” posts, look at statistics from 3rd and 4th tier law schools, and see many lawyers who practice outside of “big-law”, I can’t help but feel as if being a lawyer isn’t all that much to be proud of anymore. In the not too distant past, identifying yourself as an attorney automatically conveyed (the vast majority of the time) very specific characteristics about yourself. I do not feel as if the same can be said today. Unless you are remarkably inept or have a criminal record, I feel as if virtually anyone can receive their JD. I am worried about where this profession will end up in another fifty years. I seek the opinions of others, but I truly ask that the tone be respectful and constructive.



26 of our nations presidents were lawyers who NEVER took the LSAT. The list of NON-LSAT takers include many of the brilliant practicing attorneys out there today
Let us all not forget the LSAT is about 20 years old and there are tons of intelligent idiots out there with 4.0 gpa and 180 lsat scores

thanks for the topic

User avatar
ect88
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:54 am

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby ect88 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:30 pm

Some reactions to the posts I've read in this thread:

If these people who supposedly shouldn't be getting law degrees are indeed getting them and practicing law...then won't a large percentage of them subsequently fail in their career? If they are too unintelligent to be an attorney, they won't make it as one. Granted there are always exceptions to the rule, but I feel like anyone who passes the bar exam and successfully keeps themselves afloat as an attorney has to at least be doing one thing right.

I have no problem with lower-ranked schools opening and accepting less-than-phenomenal applicants -- if someone is dedicated enough to their dream or aspirations to get to law school, I think they deserve a chance. We can't blindly say you aren't intelligent enough to be a lawyer just because you don't fit a traditional set of quantitative criteria. Give people a chance. If they fail, at least they were given a fair opportunity.

Also, the prestige of a career, in my opinion, should have no impact on your decision to pursue it. Unfortunately, a lot of careers that are extremely valuable to society have little prestige in the eyes of society, but this makes them no less noble. You should never base your pride of your career on how other people see it.

User avatar
EbonyEsq
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:06 am

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby EbonyEsq » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:35 pm

Last I recall a J.D. does not make a lawyer. Passing the bar does. Perhaps we should question that standard of state bar examinations.

Emma1
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby Emma1 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:42 pm

LilMonsterAnnie wrote:
nyclawguy wrote:I have been a semi-frequent visitor to TLS for quite some time. While I’ve only ever posted on the site on 3 or 4 occasions, I find it a great place to find information regarding the application process, and law school more generally. Nevertheless, in the course of my perusing, I’ve always been a bit perturbed by those posts in which people ask to have other users “chance them”, and have fairly deplorable numbers. Before I continue on, I am more than aware of the fact that numbers aren’t everything (I especially feel this way with the LSAT since I don’t believe that a four hour test is necessarily indicative of how one will do in law school or as a practicing attorney), but with that said, I think there is something to be said for one’s GPA (four years of sustained study, presumably on a topic that a person finds intellectually stimulating). Also, I do recognize that as it pertains to GPA, instances arise where students have a crisis that impacts their grades for a semester or longer (or even on occasion, just a really difficult class/course of study). And of course, one’s “soft” factors must be taken into account; there is certainly something to be said for students who hold a job during their undergraduate careers, are heavily involved in community service/leadership activities, who publish articles, win awards, etc.

Nevertheless, despite all of these aforementioned considerations, I cannot help but feel that in the United States today, anyone who wants to go to law school, can (I stop short of saying “become an attorney” because passing the bar is still a fairly formidable obstacle). Fifty years ago, there was something to be said for being a lawyer; it implied a sense of intelligence (true, academic intelligence—not “life experience”), and carried with it a degree of prestige. Going to law school was hard work, and not every John Doe who liked to argue, enjoyed politics, and was in student council went on to pursue a legal education. However, as the decades have gone by, I feel as if the industry has begun to corrode (quite precipitously), and I feel that this problem lies with the proliferation of law schools that really have no place issuing JDs. The 25th percentile GPA/LSAT of Southern University (which appears to be the lowest ranked school on TLS) is 2.48 and 143 respectively. Graduating with a 2.48 (and mind you, 25% of the class at this particular school has LESS than a 2.48) is slightly better than a C+ average, and on the October 2010 test, a 143 meant that you answered 45 out of 101 questions correctly (and again, 25% of the class at this school scored even worse). Looking at these statistics this way begs the question as to whether or not a student with those statistics (or worse) has any place practicing law. I asked a family member of mine who is the director of hiring for a clothing company if she would ever hire someone with a 2.48 GPA, and her answer was an unequivocal “no”.

No, not everyone is a gunner who shoots for the t14 or has aspirations of working at Wachtell or Cravath. Many people are more than content (and have wonderfully successful careers) practicing law at boutique firms or working as sole practitioners. Yet regardless of where you attend law school, or where you eventually practice, being a lawyer requires intelligence. The law is inherently complex, reading legalese can be worse than hyroglifics, and legal research can be a grueling undertaking. I cannot help but think that to do all of these things well (emphasis on well) one must be smarter than average. I remember going to an attorney’s office when my parents closed on their new home and left mortified that I wanted to pursue a career in law, because of the ineptitude, incompetence, and unintelligence of the man signing the coveted “Esq.” after his name. When I asked casually asked him what law school he attended, I was unsurprised by his answer.

I post this not to place myself on a pedestal or appear arrogant, but instead to foster a legitimate and respectful (emphasis on respectful) dialogue. I have always been drawn to the legal profession, and have always felt as if being a lawyer was predicated upon being smart, articulate, and disciplined. However, as I read through many of these “chance me” posts, look at statistics from 3rd and 4th tier law schools, and see many lawyers who practice outside of “big-law”, I can’t help but feel as if being a lawyer isn’t all that much to be proud of anymore. In the not too distant past, identifying yourself as an attorney automatically conveyed (the vast majority of the time) very specific characteristics about yourself. I do not feel as if the same can be said today. Unless you are remarkably inept or have a criminal record, I feel as if virtually anyone can receive their JD. I am worried about where this profession will end up in another fifty years. I seek the opinions of others, but I truly ask that the tone be respectful and constructive.



26 of our nations presidents were lawyers who NEVER took the LSAT. The list of NON-LSAT takers include many of the brilliant practicing attorneys out there today
Let us all not forget the LSAT is about 20 years old and there are tons of intelligent idiots out there with 4.0 gpa and 180 lsat scores

thanks for the topic


LSAT has been around alot longer than that!!! I have family members who took them in the 70's and have read that they have existed in some form since 1948!

User avatar
tttlllsss
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby tttlllsss » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:06 pm

Emma1 wrote:LSAT has been around alot longer than that!!! I have family members who took them in the 70's and have read that they have existed in some form since 1948!


Uhh... you do realize that we had lawyer presidents before 1948, right?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby bk1 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:07 pm

tttlllsss wrote:
Emma1 wrote:LSAT has been around alot longer than that!!! I have family members who took them in the 70's and have read that they have existed in some form since 1948!


Uhh... you do realize that we had lawyer presidents before 1948, right?


lolwut?

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby JazzOne » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:08 pm

slax wrote:+1. You couldn't manage a 3.0 in undergrad but think you'll be in the top 10% at a TTT and get a legit job. This is why Americans are in such deep debt.

lol

JenBunny
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby JenBunny » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:13 pm

LilMonsterAnnie wrote:
26 of our nations presidents were lawyers who NEVER took the LSAT. The list of NON-LSAT takers include many of the brilliant practicing attorneys out there today
Let us all not forget the LSAT is about 20 years old and there are tons of intelligent idiots out there with 4.0 gpa and 180 lsat scores

thanks for the topic


Surely, though, just because 26 of our presidents were lawyers who never took the LSAT doesn't mean that they would not have scored well on the LSAT had it existed in their day and/or had they taken it. This would presumably also apply to many other Non-LSAT takers...

User avatar
ect88
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:54 am

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby ect88 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:17 pm

slax wrote:+1. You couldn't manage a 3.0 in undergrad but think you'll be in the top 10% at a TTT and get a legit job. This is why Americans are in such deep debt.


Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "a legit job"?

Emma1
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby Emma1 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:19 pm

tttlllsss wrote:
Emma1 wrote:LSAT has been around alot longer than that!!! I have family members who took them in the 70's and have read that they have existed in some form since 1948!


Uhh... you do realize that we had lawyer presidents before 1948, right?


DUH yes! I didn't address the issue of lawyer presidents. LOL

User avatar
slax
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby slax » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:34 pm

ect88 wrote:
slax wrote:+1. You couldn't manage a 3.0 in undergrad but think you'll be in the top 10% at a TTT and get a legit job. This is why Americans are in such deep debt.


Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "a legit job"?


One that pays more than it costs to interview for.

User avatar
ect88
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:54 am

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby ect88 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:22 pm

slax wrote:
ect88 wrote:
slax wrote:+1. You couldn't manage a 3.0 in undergrad but think you'll be in the top 10% at a TTT and get a legit job. This is why Americans are in such deep debt.


Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "a legit job"?


One that pays more than it costs to interview for.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean one that pays more than law school tuition costs? I hope I'm wildly misinterpreting that and overlooking an obvious meaning to what you just said, because otherwise that makes most public interest law jobs not "legit."

User avatar
slax
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby slax » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:04 pm

ect88 wrote:
slax wrote:
ect88 wrote:
slax wrote:+1. You couldn't manage a 3.0 in undergrad but think you'll be in the top 10% at a TTT and get a legit job. This is why Americans are in such deep debt.


Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "a legit job"?


One that pays more than it costs to interview for.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean one that pays more than law school tuition costs? I hope I'm wildly misinterpreting that and overlooking an obvious meaning to what you just said, because otherwise that makes most public interest law jobs not "legit."


I'd say that public interest is an exception to all law school rules. It's as if I said you shouldn't try out for the basketball team unless your 6+ feet tall and you said Well, what about wheelchair basketball?

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby JazzOne » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:08 pm

slax wrote:I'd say that public interest is an exception to all law school rules. It's as if I said you shouldn't try out for the basketball team unless your 6+ feet tall and you said Well, what about wheelchair basketball?

lol

PI is for the cripples.

User avatar
slax
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby slax » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:11 pm

JazzOne wrote:
slax wrote:I'd say that public interest is an exception to all law school rules. It's as if I said you shouldn't try out for the basketball team unless your 6+ feet tall and you said Well, what about wheelchair basketball?

lol

PI is for the cripples.


Well, that's one interpretation. But not the one intended. Hahaha

User avatar
ScarryBakhtin
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:19 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby ScarryBakhtin » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:27 pm

nyclawguy wrote:
bk1, I think you miss the crux of my argument. That people who attend ANY law school should not ride off the "esq." after their name is a given; ANY lawyer should do something with their degree. My point, however, was to pose the question as to whether or not there are certain individuals who just should not be going to law school. Going back to the med school example: if as an undergraduate you failed or barely passed bio, chem, and orgo, do you really think that med school (which requires a cursory knowledge of all of these subjects...hence the reason they are pre-med) is for you? If someone can barely squeeze out a C+ cum-GPA from undergrad, are they suited to meet the intellectual rigors of being a GOOD attorney? This may sound harsh, but I think it's a valid point.



We live in a country structured, for the most part, by a supply and demand economy. It is irrelevant whether or not someone will or will not be a "good" lawyer. In fact, many of the law schools to which you refer aren't particularly concerned with what their students end up doing. As the people matriculating at TTT law schools continue to pay tuition those law schools will exist. There are more than a fare share of people on this site who try to discourage such people from wasting there money. Prestige, however, is not relevant.

The analogy with medicine, though I have heard it before, is seriously flawed. The general public is significantly more concerned with their health than with justice. People are more concerned with what they can see and feel than they are with a series of abstractions that they believe hardly affects them. I'm not arguing that they are wrong or right, only that people feel that way.

For the record, though, there are a lot of "TTT" medical schools. Not many people like to hear that there is a profession they "can't" pursue. It is supposed to be America, after all.

User avatar
lvsmithmarsh
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:02 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby lvsmithmarsh » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:35 pm

A couple thoughts as I jump into the fray:

1) Should we be predicating intelligence on GPA and LSAT in the first place? I mean, I don't dispute that both numbers are good measurements of intelligence, but I think we all recognize that there are plenty of exceptions on both ends of the spectrum. All I'm saying is that low GPA/low LSAT does not automatically preclude intelligence.

2) I would venture to say that neither going to law school nor passing the bar makes one an attorney... having a job as an attorney makes one an attorney.

So yeah, as much as I'm wary of letting the markets make our decisions for us, I don't particularly have a problem with TTT or TTTT schools. First, there's a certain segment of the law school population that is well qualified to be a lawyer but chooses to attend a lower ranked school because of a personal situation. I have no problems, for instance, with a non-traditional applicant with a real estate background who wants to practice real estate law choosing to stay in Charlotte and go to Charlotte Law School because her family and connections are here. Would I make the same decision? Probably not, but I'm not her.

Second - and this is an honest question - is someone who goes to a T14/T1 school really, truly competing for jobs with someone who goes to a TTT or TTTT? Sure, the job market sucks, but I tend to think that legal jobs are stratified just as much as law schools. If I'm way off base on this, please enlighten me.

***Also, it's Friday night, I just made a lemon meringue pie, and I'm posting on TLS opinion boards. My life has been stolen from me.***

User avatar
ScarryBakhtin
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:19 pm

Re: What's your Opinion?

Postby ScarryBakhtin » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:04 pm

lvsmithmarsh wrote:***Also, it's Friday night, I just made a lemon meringue pie, and I'm posting on TLS opinion boards. My life has been stolen from me.***


+1




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 20171lhopeful, Bing [Bot], tinafeyclone and 5 guests