NYU 2010 Forum

[APimpNamedSlickback]

i'll be lucky to get into chicago-kent, let alone that school in hyde park. do you guys think depaul will let me ed this late in the cycle? oh, also fml. kthx

[IAFG]

i'll be lucky to get into chicago-kent, let alone that school in hyde park. do you guys think depaul will let me ed this late in the cycle? oh, also fml. kthx

u zipit

[rockchalk86]

Am I the only one who thinks you guys are crazy for rating professors you have never been taught by? That's like saying someone is your favorite author or director without ever reading one of their books or watching one of their movies. Sure, maybe you read some articles these people have written, but that does not translate to teaching style or ability.

I don't mean to be a hater of this conversation, it just bugs me.

[psychomohel]

Am I the only one who thinks you guys are crazy for rating professors you have never been taught by? That's like saying someone is your favorite author or director without ever reading one of their books or watching one of their movies. Sure, maybe you read some articles these people have written, but that does not translate to teaching style or ability.

I don't mean to be a hater of this conversation, it just bugs me.

+1

It bothers me a bit that people are rating/choosing schools based on political leanings, or supposed political leanings.

[rockchalk86]

Am I the only one who thinks you guys are crazy for rating professors you have never been taught by? That's like saying someone is your favorite author or director without ever reading one of their books or watching one of their movies. Sure, maybe you read some articles these people have written, but that does not translate to teaching style or ability.

I don't mean to be a hater of this conversation, it just bugs me.

+1

It bothers me a bit that people are rating/choosing schools based on political leanings, or supposed political leanings.

Agreed. This is law school, not political science. Being taught by people all over the spectrum can only serve to benefit your political ideology anyway. If you are Liberal and only care to learn from liberals, you are practicing micro level groupthink. Dangerous practice in my opinion (and breeds douches). I'm not going to law school to have some professor reaffirm my political beliefs, I am going to learn law and become the best lawyer I can. Besides, considering that becoming a great lawyer requires strong argumentative skills, wouldn't you want a teacher who does not hold your views? It's hard to have a good argument with a professor about politics if you think like that professor. Just a thought.

[Veyron]

LOL at me as a conservative choosing NYU because I am afraid of opposing viewpoints. I should go somewhere more liberal for school to be exposed to other points of view like... mmm... idk... having a hard time thinking, perhaps the Communist Party of the United States' annual convention?

No, obviously, NYU is incredibly liberal, most NYU profs are incredibly liberal, most NYU students are incredibly liberal - in fact, if I survive 3 years un-lynched I will consider myself lucky. I was just pointing out that in spite of all this, the few conservative profs that they have are at the top of their game and giving NYU props for having the balls not to let ideology get in the way of hiring the best talent.

As for rating profs I've never been taught by, well - just because I'm not from Louisiana and have never been governed by Bobby Jindal, doesn't stop me from rating him as a governor. Obviously teaching style is an important component of any prof and I know little about each person's ability in that regard. I am merely speaking about their standing in the legal community and their scholarly impact. I have no idea why this would "bother" either of you except for maybe jealousy. Dems!

[rockchalk86]

LOL at me as a conservative choosing NYU because I am afraid of opposing viewpoints. I should go somewhere more liberal for school to be exposed to other points of view like... mmm... idk... having a hard time thinking, perhaps the Communist Party of the United States' annual convention?

No, obviously, NYU is incredibly liberal, most NYU profs are incredibly liberal, most NYU students are incredibly liberal - in fact, if I survive 3 years un-lynched I will consider myself lucky. I was just pointing out that in spite of all this, the few conservative profs that they have are at the top of their game and giving NYU props for having the balls not to let ideology get in the way of hiring the best talent.

As for rating profs I've never been taught by, well - just because I'm not from Louisiana and have never been governed by Bobby Jindal, doesn't stop me from rating him as a governor. Obviously teaching style is an important component of any prof and I know little about each person's ability in that regard. I am merely speaking about their standing in the legal community and their scholarly impact. I have no idea why this would "bother" either of you except for maybe jealousy.

Jealousy has nothing to do with it and using a political figure to make your point does not work because his job is in the spotlight whereas a teachers is not. What bothers me is the audacity to rank professors you have never had. I think it is just really stupid to do so. Who cares about "standing in the community" or "scholarly impact". Those terms come from the professors ability to write. Once again, this in no way translates into teaching ability. I am not saying they can't teach, I am just saying you don't know if they can. It would be foolish to pick a school based on teachers standing in the community.

[Veyron]

Since I know nothing about any profs ability to teach then, I would have no way of evaluating relative faculty strengths in deciding between NYU and other excellent schools. However, I could probably rightly assume that there is at least some correlation between brilliance and the ability to be a good law prof.

You are also assuming that there is not some intrinsic value in learning from such baddass profs whether or not they are better teachers. Let me put it this way, people are always willing to pay Kurt Warner (QB of the Cardinals for the uninitiated) money to give motivational speeches. No one is willing to pay me money. This in spite of the fact that I am by far the better speaker. They obviously derive some value from hearing things from Kurt Warner because he is the man in the arena.

Your argument also incorrectly assumes that these profs are not in the spotlight. I would refer you to Above the Law and similar. In our world, these are the rockstars and I can assure you that I know more about Richard Epstein than I do about Bobby Jindal.

Also, LOR's from l33t profs > LOR's from average profs, all other things being =

[SanBun]

hey everyone, need some smart TLS advice here..

So I'm going to the admitted students day at Fordham, and during my time in NYC plan on visiting NYU. They haven't made a decision on my file yet. I plan on visiting on the 25/1. I went complete 11/17.

My question is, if I let them know tomorrow that I am visiting that day, do you think that they will likely hold off the decision until I was actually there? It would seem kind of rude to, for instance, reject me a week before I arrive, having booked the flight, hotel room etc.

I am a very very untraditional applicant. Non-URM, but at some schools I have definitely been treated very similar to a URM just based on decisions I see on LSN and scholly offers. Numbers wise I'm definitely on the weaker side, but have a rather strong story to go along with those numbers

My question is, do you think that 1) my visit will make a difference, e.g. it could get me waitlisted instead of rejected or maybe even accepted instead of waitlisted 2) they will hold off on the decision when they know I am coming to campus (based on LSN rejections start rolling out around mid January) and 3) that I would be able to talk to someone from the admissions office?

[Veyron]

It seems as if admit decisions for your application date were made at the end of Dec (unless some people were held for a later decision date). You might want to verify that they have not yet made a decision before proceeding.

[rockchalk86]

Since I know nothing about any profs ability to teach then, I would have no way of evaluating relative faculty strengths in deciding between NYU and other excellent schools. However, I could probably rightly assume that there is at least some correlation between brilliance and the ability to be a good law prof.

You are also assuming that there is not some intrinsic value in learning from such baddass profs whether or not they are better teachers. Let me put it this way, people are always willing to pay Kurt Warner (QB of the Cardinals for the uninitiated) money to give motivational speeches. No one is willing to pay me money. This in spite of the fact that I am by far the better speaker. They obviously derive some value from hearing things from Kurt Warner because he is the man in the arena.

Your argument also incorrectly assumes that these profs are not in the spotlight. I would refer you to Above the Law and similar. In our world, these are the rockstars and I can assure you that I know more about Richard Epstein than I do about Bobby Jindal.

Also, LOR's from l33t profs > LOR's from average profs, all other things being =

I would argue that rockstar teachers may not have nearly the time for you that other professors might. If I am a rockstar, I will likely have many engagements that keep me away from my office and possibly the classroom at times. I may have speeches, be of council to firms, and other events that spread my time to thin to worry about a students small question about class.

In sports, the best players always make shitty coaches. Gretzky, Jordan, Bird etc... This is usually because they can't understand why their players can't pick up on ideas that came so easily to them. They can't relate.

At top ten schools, it is safe to assume the teachers are all brilliant and accomplished. With that premise, i would rather be taught by someone who had time for me as a student over someone who was "famous" but too busy for me.

When it comes to future employment, firms don't give a shit that you took torts with some rockstar. They care about your grade (at least in top ten). If I get a mediocre grade because I had all these questions that my professor was too busy to answer, I would be pissed. If I got a mediocre grade after getting questions answered, then I at least know that it was completely on me.

And a governors job is to govern. You can clearly judge a governor by policy, popularity, decisions etc... Results are what matter. With professors, you are judging them on popularity and their status in the community. This is entirely based on their writing and networking. The problem is that a professors job is to teach. They are in the spotlight, but not for their ability to teach (their job). As a student, I would not care how famous my teacher is, I would care about their ability to teach me the material.

In summation, all teachers in the top ten are probably great, but to say one is better than another because they are famous is unfounded.

[TheWire]

hey everyone, need some smart TLS advice here..

So I'm going to the admitted students day at Fordham, and during my time in NYC plan on visiting NYU. They haven't made a decision on my file yet. I plan on visiting on the 25/1. I went complete 11/17.

My question is, if I let them know tomorrow that I am visiting that day, do you think that they will likely hold off the decision until I was actually there? It would seem kind of rude to, for instance, reject me a week before I arrive, having booked the flight, hotel room etc.

I am a very very untraditional applicant. Non-URM, but at some schools I have definitely been treated very similar to a URM just based on decisions I see on LSN and scholly offers. Numbers wise I'm definitely on the weaker side, but have a rather strong story to go along with those numbers

My question is, do you think that 1) my visit will make a difference, e.g. it could get me waitlisted instead of rejected or maybe even accepted instead of waitlisted 2) they will hold off on the decision when they know I am coming to campus (based on LSN rejections start rolling out around mid January) and 3) that I would be able to talk to someone from the admissions office?

Wats up bud...So this is just my $.02. I'm def. rooting for you BUTTTTTTT....NYU is not gonna be one of the reachesw that admits you. NYU, simply is the epitome of Number-based law school admissions. They admit a ton of people every year relative to the other top schools...this is because they essentially admit all the high numbers. So, if you were asking about a school such as Berkeley I might be with you on this. However, unfortunately, NYU simply isn't going to care about you too much. I'm really sorry for saying this, it makes me pretty bad. But, just keeping it real, you may want to let NYU just do its own thing and drop by if they haven't send u an answer yet. That way, it could only help. The way you proposed it could end up being awkward for the both of you. Anyways, best of luck...take my advice with a grain of salt.

--TheWire

[02082010]

Pretty sure Epstein won't be doing any actual TEACHING at NYU. He'll be an emeritus professor. Also, outside of Dworkin, not overly impressed over here.

[SanBun]

hey everyone, need some smart TLS advice here..

So I'm going to the admitted students day at Fordham, and during my time in NYC plan on visiting NYU. They haven't made a decision on my file yet. I plan on visiting on the 25/1. I went complete 11/17.

My question is, if I let them know tomorrow that I am visiting that day, do you think that they will likely hold off the decision until I was actually there? It would seem kind of rude to, for instance, reject me a week before I arrive, having booked the flight, hotel room etc.

I am a very very untraditional applicant. Non-URM, but at some schools I have definitely been treated very similar to a URM just based on decisions I see on LSN and scholly offers. Numbers wise I'm definitely on the weaker side, but have a rather strong story to go along with those numbers

My question is, do you think that 1) my visit will make a difference, e.g. it could get me waitlisted instead of rejected or maybe even accepted instead of waitlisted 2) they will hold off on the decision when they know I am coming to campus (based on LSN rejections start rolling out around mid January) and 3) that I would be able to talk to someone from the admissions office?

Wats up bud...So this is just my $.02. I'm def. rooting for you BUTTTTTTT....NYU is not gonna be one of the reachesw that admits you. NYU, simply is the epitome of Number-based law school admissions. They admit a ton of people every year relative to the other top schools...this is because they essentially admit all the high numbers. So, if you were asking about a school such as Berkeley I might be with you on this. However, unfortunately, NYU simply isn't going to care about you too much. I'm really sorry for saying this, it makes me pretty bad. But, just keeping it real, you may want to let NYU just do its own thing and drop by if they haven't send u an answer yet. That way, it could only help. The way you proposed it could end up being awkward for the both of you. Anyways, best of luck...take my advice with a grain of salt.

--TheWire

thanks Wire, I appreciate directness and honesty so much, even if it goes against my expectations or hopes. I think I'll follow your advice

[Veyron]

Yes, but if the teacher doesn't answer my questions, he won't answer the questions posed by others. Thus, the playing field will be level.

I went to a pretty prestigious undergrad. Some of my profs were rockstars. Some were too busy for the class, some were MORE engaged than other profs. In general, these classes were the most fulfilling ones that I took during my time in UG.

RE Epstein not teaching, where are you getting this from? I thought I saw him listed as teaching a class on the list of classes that NYU lets you observe if ya visit (yes I spend too much time trolling NYU's website). Plz plz plz let your info be inaccurate.

[rockchalk86]

Yes, but if the teacher doesn't answer my questions, he won't answer the questions posed by others. Thus, the playing field will be level.

I went to a pretty prestigious under grad. Some of my profs were rockstars. Some were too busy for the class, some were MORE engaged than other profs. In general, these classes were the most fulfilling ones that I took during my time in UG.

The playing field may be level, but their job is to teach. Why would i be paying all this money if my professor does not have time for me?

I just really believe you can't make the decision of where you want to go to school based on the teachers being rockstars. There are so many factors that could play a role, but teaching ability should not play a big role because we simply don't know how good they are (at least within the top ten).

[Veyron]

Ok, well let me put it this way. What would I make the decision based on? The schools between which a decision is likely to be difficult will have to have similar job prospects (T10 and all - although for the type of law I want to do T6 + Penn is really what I had to gun for) and location (bos-wash although obvi NYC gets the nod). Sure culture is a relevant consideration, but how can I not consider the profs in this case? I mean, I am attracted to law partially for the intellectual stimulation, is there a more relevant metric that I am missing?

[badfish]

Pretty sure Epstein won't be doing any actual TEACHING at NYU. He'll be an emeritus professor. Also, outside of Dworkin, not overly impressed over here.

Epstein currently teaches 1L torts. Not sure if he'll do it again next year when he's a full time professor but I hear he's an awful professor anyways.

[Veyron]

[/quote]
Epstein currently teaches 1L torts. Not sure if he'll do it again next year when he's a full time professor but I hear he's an awful professor anyways.[/quote]

How much of his reputation for awfulness stems from ideological bias in your opinion? He appears to be a very engaging speaker.

[badfish]

How much of his reputation for awfulness stems from ideological bias in your opinion? He appears to be a very engaging speaker.

I'm actually inclined to agree with epstein ideologically. From what I've heard from friends who have him, however, is that he is not particularly engaging and is generally mean. That said, my 1L torts professor was awesome.

[rockchalk86]

Ok, well let me put it this way. What would I make the decision based on? The schools between which a decision is likely to be difficult will have to have similar job prospects (T10 and all - although for the type of law I want to do T6 + Penn is really what I had to gun for) and location (bos-wash although obvi NYC gets the nod). Sure culture is a relevant consideration, but how can I not consider the profs in this case? I mean, I am attracted to law partially for the intellectual stimulation, is there a more relevant metric that I am missing?

Cost, where you want to spend three years, the students, school specialties, job prospects, scholarships, family ties, where you want to work. There are so many ways to evaluate your decision. Out of my three acceptances so far, I am trying to decide between Michigan and Duke. I like the relatively small class size, reach of the diploma, COL, small town atmosphere, and career prospects. If I get into NYU, that would be my number one because I am a legacy and it has been shoved down my throat since I was young. I am also in love with the village. All of these schools have very famous and accomplished professors so that is a wash for me. I also don't know what i wanna do with the degree so specialties mean nothing to me.

It all comes down to your particular preferences. If you prefer rockstar professors and that is what is most important to you, go to NYU. Just know that if that is your main reason for picking the school, you may be disappointed. You may not. I don't know. I have never taken a class with Epstein so I can't tell you.

[Veyron]

The previous poast distilled:

Life is uncertain. There is no foolproof way of choosing the best law school for you.

Agreed, I did not claim that there was.

[drsomebody]

If law is anything like other departments, professors don't get 'credit' for being good teachers. Being a really, really lousy teacher can provide the excuse for a department to deny tenure to an otherwise borderline professor but I have never seen or heard of it being the determinate factor in hiring/tenure cases. Because teaching isn't a valued component of professional advancement, it will always be a secondary function for your professors. Rockstar professors who are good teachers are good teachers despite being academic rockstars. There's a lot of negative pressure for these people to focus on other things.

Also, judging a law school because of one or two 'star' professors is a pretty silly way to go about things. There's no guarantee that the professor is available, that he is invested in teaching or mentoring, that he will like you, or that you will like the professor.

Ph.D. programs give you a couple of years to "try out" various labs and mentors to deal with all these issues. You don't have that time in law school.

It's far better to judge a school because of the strength of the overall program.

Unless your only purpose in life is to clerk for the guy, I wouldn't put much stock in Scalia's opinion of law schools. Although he's a brilliant jurist he's also a cranky curmudgeon who is rather out of touch with the current state of legal education.

p.s. Anybody else have trouble getting any responses from the NYU admissions office? I sent an e-mail about a missing component to my application early last week and haven't heard back yet.

[Veyron]

If a prof is a big enough name, he doesn't have to worry about getting fired or not getting tenure and can focus on teaching. I imagine this is the case at NYU. Again, had several profs in UG like this so it definitely happens.

The profs should not be the sole determinate of where you go to school but I mean really, when you make decisions between schools as similar as CCN (or other T-14s even) you have to split hairs, no?

"Unless your only purpose in life is to clerk for the guy (Scalia)"

Ah, if only. Neih, if I could but kiss his ring.

[rockchalk86]

If a prof is a big enough name, he doesn't have to worry about getting fired or not getting tenure and can focus on teaching. I imagine this is the case at NYU. Again, had several profs in UG like this so it definitely happens.

The profs should not be the sole determinate of where you go to school but I mean really, when you make decisions between schools as similar as CCN (or other T-14s even) you have to split hairs, no?

"Unless your only purpose in life is to clerk for the guy (Scalia)"

Ah, if only. Neih, if I could but kiss his ring.

Only if you can't decide on where you wanna live, which specialties you like, money etc...

Teachers would be one of my last things to consider if I could not make a choice. But their ability to teach is so uncertain to us OL's, I don't know how helpful that would be for me. Maybe you could sit in on classes with some of your favorite professors and see for yourself.