SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
swilson215
Posts: 1109
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:35 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby swilson215 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:54 pm

TheRedBlueBerry wrote:
StylinNProfilin wrote:
alot of kid brought their parents? really? thats...um...embarassing. Is this typcial?


Yeah, it was strange. :shock: I was shocked when I walked into the breakfast area alone and I was surrounded by parents. I didn't think this was typical for ASD's, but I guess maybe it is for SMU. Overall, I thought the day was okay, but I had already visited so I didn't get much out of it besides go to SMU if you want to work in Dallas (which most people already knew).


Kind of a broad generalization. It's been a few years, but when I went to the SMU ASD before 1L there were maybe 5 kids with parents. They were definitely the exception to the rule that year...so maybe it's just that class, and not representative of SMU as a whole?

User avatar
swilson215
Posts: 1109
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:35 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby swilson215 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:57 pm

kalvano wrote:I don't know why they stick you guys in Contracts. It's so boring. Upper-level classes would be much more interesting.


SMU students, particularly the undergrads, have the reputation of being spoiled, entitled douchebags. There is a bit of that in the law school, but it's nowhere near what you'd find in the undergrad. There's a good chunk of students not from Dallas, so it balances out. Although if you're the kind of person who gets irritable by young people with money, even nice people, SMU will be rough.


I have to agree...the undergrads and their senses of entitlement piss me off a lot more than any other law students have. Most of the more spoiled kids I've met in law school are that way out of habit more than anything else, and almost all of the ones I've met have been really nice people.

User avatar
TheJanitor6203
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby TheJanitor6203 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:59 pm

Holynorth wrote:I don't see why everyone is shocked about parents being there. They're more than likely paying for a large portion if not all of the student's COL or tuition, so they should get to see what they're paying for. Also, they're probably excited their child is going to law school and want to be there before their kid is sent off for another three years.

I see your point. That works for those students going straight from UG to law school but I've been under the impression that a lot of law students don't fall into that catagory. I don't.

Holynorth
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Holynorth » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:10 pm

TheJanitor6203 wrote:
Holynorth wrote:I don't see why everyone is shocked about parents being there. They're more than likely paying for a large portion if not all of the student's COL or tuition, so they should get to see what they're paying for. Also, they're probably excited their child is going to law school and want to be there before their kid is sent off for another three years.

I see your point. That works for those students going straight from UG to law school but I've been under the impression that a lot of law students don't fall into that catagory. I don't.


I would assume the students who worked for several years after UG are the ones that are without parents being there with them.

User avatar
TheJanitor6203
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby TheJanitor6203 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:20 pm

This actually raises a question for me.

To the current students: What would you say the percentage is of law students straight from UG?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby kalvano » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:32 pm

TheJanitor6203 wrote:This actually raises a question for me.

To the current students: What would you say the percentage is of law students straight from UG?



Probably 2/3's or so.

User avatar
TheJanitor6203
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby TheJanitor6203 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:41 pm

kalvano wrote:
TheJanitor6203 wrote:This actually raises a question for me.

To the current students: What would you say the percentage is of law students straight from UG?



Probably 2/3's or so.

And are you just speaking for FT? I'd assume PT is probably less.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby kalvano » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:44 pm

TheJanitor6203 wrote:
kalvano wrote:
TheJanitor6203 wrote:This actually raises a question for me.

To the current students: What would you say the percentage is of law students straight from UG?



Probably 2/3's or so.

And are you just speaking for FT? I'd assume PT is probably less.


Yes. It's substantially higher for PT.

User avatar
TheRedBlueBerry
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:12 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby TheRedBlueBerry » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:53 pm

swilson215 wrote:
TheRedBlueBerry wrote:
StylinNProfilin wrote:
alot of kid brought their parents? really? thats...um...embarassing. Is this typcial?


Yeah, it was strange. :shock: I was shocked when I walked into the breakfast area alone and I was surrounded by parents. I didn't think this was typical for ASD's, but I guess maybe it is for SMU. Overall, I thought the day was okay, but I had already visited so I didn't get much out of it besides go to SMU if you want to work in Dallas (which most people already knew).


Kind of a broad generalization. It's been a few years, but when I went to the SMU ASD before 1L there were maybe 5 kids with parents. They were definitely the exception to the rule that year...so maybe it's just that class, and not representative of SMU as a whole?



Very true, it will vary from year to year. I was just under the impression that the majority of time, at any law school ASD, most people do not bring their parents. :D

User avatar
Well_he_did_not
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:18 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Well_he_did_not » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:54 pm

..on a separate note, just spoke to admissions and they said that we may not hear back from the Hughes scholly committee until after the 1st deposit deadline.

Can't say I'm surprised but :shock:, damn.

User avatar
JXander
Posts: 960
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:23 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby JXander » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:38 pm

Well_he_did_not wrote:..on a separate note, just spoke to admissions and they said that we may not hear back from the Hughes scholly committee until after the 1st deposit deadline.

Can't say I'm surprised but :shock:, damn.

AFTER? Geez...

majnana
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:40 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby majnana » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:21 pm

Holynorth wrote:I don't see why everyone is shocked about parents being there. They're more than likely paying for a large portion if not all of the student's COL or tuition, so they should get to see what they're paying for. Also, they're probably excited their child is going to law school and want to be there before their kid is sent off for another three years.


I totally agree with this. As a 29-year-old with two deceased parents who is paying her own way through 7+ years of college, I have to say that if I were lucky enough to have parents who wanted to see a school and possibly help pay for it I would have no problem bringing them along to ASD. In fact, I felt rather envious as I looked around at "kids" and their parents. No one hijacked the tours or lectures that I could see, and no one was a "weird" parent in any way.

Actually, during breakfast I was talking with a fellow admit and her mom and enjoyed talking to both of them, so it was pretty cool.

Maybe it is one of those things you don't understand/miss until it's gone.

User avatar
jenm12
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby jenm12 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:55 pm

I know SMU's known for good job prospects in Dallas, but do grads do fairly well outside of DFW?
I honestly don't know where I want to practice long-term (most likely Texas for family reasons... possibly south), but all the Dallas talk has me a bit nervous about being marketable outside of DFW.

User avatar
JXander
Posts: 960
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:23 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby JXander » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:57 pm

jenm12 wrote:I know SMU's known for good job prospects in Dallas, but do grads do fairly well outside of DFW?

The general consensus among the staff during ASD was a big "no."

User avatar
swilson215
Posts: 1109
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:35 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby swilson215 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:10 am

JXander wrote:
jenm12 wrote:I know SMU's known for good job prospects in Dallas, but do grads do fairly well outside of DFW?

The general consensus among the staff during ASD was a big "no."


You won't do well out of state, but SMU is still well-known in other parts of Texas (as well as some of Oklahoma, if you're so inclined). Yeah, you won't do as well as a UH grad in Houston, or a Tech grad in Amarillo, but you'll be fine in other parts of Texas. Obviously you'll do best (job-wise) in DFW, but that doesn't mean you're stuck there by any means. I have several friends that are working in Houston either for the summer or post-grad.

majnana
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:40 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby majnana » Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:00 am

swilson215 wrote:
JXander wrote:
jenm12 wrote:I know SMU's known for good job prospects in Dallas, but do grads do fairly well outside of DFW?

The general consensus among the staff during ASD was a big "no."


You won't do well out of state, but SMU is still well-known in other parts of Texas (as well as some of Oklahoma, if you're so inclined). Yeah, you won't do as well as a UH grad in Houston, or a Tech grad in Amarillo, but you'll be fine in other parts of Texas. Obviously you'll do best (job-wise) in DFW, but that doesn't mean you're stuck there by any means. I have several friends that are working in Houston either for the summer or post-grad.


It must be possible to lateral out of Dallas after a few years, though, right? Assuming you do well in your career, I mean. I would think that especially if you work for a firm, and they have offices in other cities, you could lateral around the country. Does that hold true to some extent or is that rare?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby kalvano » Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:04 am

majnana wrote:
swilson215 wrote:
JXander wrote:
jenm12 wrote:I know SMU's known for good job prospects in Dallas, but do grads do fairly well outside of DFW?

The general consensus among the staff during ASD was a big "no."


You won't do well out of state, but SMU is still well-known in other parts of Texas (as well as some of Oklahoma, if you're so inclined). Yeah, you won't do as well as a UH grad in Houston, or a Tech grad in Amarillo, but you'll be fine in other parts of Texas. Obviously you'll do best (job-wise) in DFW, but that doesn't mean you're stuck there by any means. I have several friends that are working in Houston either for the summer or post-grad.


It must be possible to lateral out of Dallas after a few years, though, right? Assuming you do well in your career, I mean. I would think that especially if you work for a firm, and they have offices in other cities, you could lateral around the country. Does that hold true to some extent or is that rare?



After working for a few years, it's more about the quality of work and why you want to move than it is what school you attended. Unless you're trying to lateral way up, then your school will always matter.

User avatar
TheJanitor6203
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby TheJanitor6203 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:56 pm

After working for a few years, it's more about the quality of work and why you want to move than it is what school you attended. Unless you're trying to lateral way up, then your school will always matter.


Anecdotal story: My uncle is a lawyer in Dallas and has been for about 20 years now. He works at a midsize firm and he’s been very successful in his field. He went to school at the University of Oklahoma City. If you haven’t heard of it, it is because I don’t even think it’s ranked. I know that going to law school 20 years ago vs. now are two different animals but I was talking to him about choosing a law school and job prospects. He said that the school you went to only matters for getting that first job. After that it is all about your past performance but more importantly who you know.

User avatar
Well_he_did_not
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:18 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Well_he_did_not » Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:18 pm

TheJanitor6203 wrote:
After working for a few years, it's more about the quality of work and why you want to move than it is what school you attended. Unless you're trying to lateral way up, then your school will always matter.


Anecdotal story: My uncle is a lawyer in Dallas and has been for about 20 years now. He works at a midsize firm and he’s been very successful in his field. He went to school at the University of Oklahoma City. If you haven’t heard of it, it is because I don’t even think it’s ranked. I know that going to law school 20 years ago vs. now are two different animals but I was talking to him about choosing a law school and job prospects. He said that the school you went to only matters for getting that first job. After that it is all about your past performance but more importantly who you know.


I have a similar one. The attorney I work for now graduated from St. Mary's at the bottom half of her class. She said that when she graduated she really wanted to work for Windle Turley here in Dallas but that they would only interview top 10%. She worked for an insurance company for 4 years (and did some awesome work). After those 4 years, Turley offered her a position that was head of the negligence division at his office. She made more than anyone in her department. :D
Last edited by Well_he_did_not on Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nba101790
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby nba101790 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:20 pm

Anyone had success getting SMU to match scholarships? I showed them my Tulane and UH offers and no dice.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby kalvano » Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:21 pm

nba101790 wrote:Anyone had success getting SMU to match scholarships? I showed them my Tulane and UH offers and no dice.


They historically do not match at all. They tend to give their best offer first and it's very much take it or leave it. Although, in fairness, they tend to be fairly generous.

Mj23la
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Mj23la » Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:00 pm

Status hasn't changed since Jan 14..the wait is killing me!

User avatar
TheJanitor6203
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby TheJanitor6203 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:17 pm

Mj23la wrote:Status hasn't changed since Jan 14..the wait is killing me!

What are your numbers? Just curious.

GardenGnome
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:52 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby GardenGnome » Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:19 pm

Mj23la wrote:Status hasn't changed since Jan 14..the wait is killing me!


We should hear today. Decisions went out of 2/22 and 3/8 last year. Decisions went out on 2/22 again this year, so if the pattern continues we should get some decisions today.
Last edited by GardenGnome on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
crchildress
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby crchildress » Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:23 pm

GardenGnome wrote:
Mj23la wrote:Status hasn't changed since Jan 14..the wait is killing me!


We should hear today. Decisions went out of 2/22 and 3/8 last year. Decisions went out on 2/22 again this year, so if the patern continues we should get some decisions today.


That sure would be nice.




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