UDC Law open house on March 22, 2014 Forum

[copingtrope]

First of all, I am 99.99999999999% sure this is either a flame or an adcomm. I find him saying he didn't know what an adcomm was even more suspicious. But I'll move forward as if this isn't a complete waste of time. FYI, this is a mistaken genius post, so it will be unnecessarily long.

VAUDC, let me try to explain this in terms you can comprehend. On Top-Law-Schools, educational quality really does not matter to any of us. This is for two reasons. One, the law is not incredibly complicated to learn. There are numerous great lawyers throughout history who did not even go to law school in the first place. Clarence Darrow did not graduate law school, and he is one of the most legendary attorneys in our country's history. You can get a fine education on the law from any law school or even from reading books on the subject. Second, despite what you seem to think, law school is not meant to provide you with an education. Law School is a professional school whose entire value rests on finding its students employment opportunities. Most people do not go $180,000 (COA of UDC) in debt because they want a good education. They go in debt because they want to be lawyers. This is not an analogy like a bloomin onion or something like that. There are not different facets to these schools. A Law School can be judged solely on its ability to do what law schools are meant to do, namely, give its students the opportunity to practice law. No one on this site is going to support a school whose students are all working as barristas at starbucks but who say they received an excellent education.

I don't understand why you seem to think this is a game of averages. LST uses the employment data the ABA receives from your school. Your school is required to submit the complete data set each year to the ABA. The only way any of this data is misleading is if your school broke the rules and maybe the law. This is the data on the entire class last year. According to the data your school is required to release, only 23% of your classmates (not average, last year) found any sort of legal employment of any kind. None of them were hired by Biglaw firms (whose salaries are the only thing that will let students pay off this debt) and none of them were hired as clerks to Federal judges. Almost half were completely unemployed or forced to try to get another degree 9 months after graduation.

I will say, UC Irvine is a new school, and knowing that employment is the most important thing, have called on favors and gone to bat for their new students. Their employment score is very impressive. That said, you can see that they have a higher unemployment score than Yale, and that Yale far outplaces them in Biglaw, Clerkships, public interest, and fellowships, the most desired jobs out of law school.

I do like how you blame the 50.4% female student body for the atrocious employment scores of your school. I would like to point out that Berkeley has 58.6% women, and yet their employment scores don't seem to suffer all that much. --LinkRemoved-- You say that every other school panders to the market. Even if that were true, isn't UDC's responsibility to pander as well to help its students so they don't become unemployed failures? I fail to see why you mention these clinics. Yes, your school has 8 clinics. Most schools have far more than that and even if that weren't the case, the opportunity to help the poor doesn't change the fact that half of UDC's student body will become those poor that need help.

Even though this is unnecessary, I really want to destroy your arguments by attacking these other qualities you say UDC has. You mentioned notable alumni and said no school has more other than Ivy league schools. Well, most people here know I'm not the biggest supporter of NYU, but let's use it as an example. Your school has six accomplished alumni:
Thelma Buchholdt
Aviva Kempner, Documentary Filmmaker
Thomas Kilbride, Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice
Keiffer Mitchell, Maryland State Delegate
Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Tiffany Alston, Maryland State Delegate

NYU meanwhile has a couple more, follow this link por favor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NY ... ool_people

Just for the hell of it, here's Harvard's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ha ... ool_alumni

You also mention that your school has better faculty than any other law school outside the Ivy league. Well, here are three separate rankings based on different data (amount cited in papers, membership in the American Academy of Arts and Science, and scholarly reputation). Unfortunately, it seems UDC just missed the cutoff in each one.
http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2 ... tion.shtml
http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2013_AAAS.shtml
http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2012_ ... pact.shtml

I'm tired of writing now, so tell me, considering the facts I've listed, why should we take the time to consider UDC?

TLDR: Retake

But...the opportunity.

[spleenworship]

Best thread in months. Just wished I could've been here when it was hot.

[NoLieAbility]

The temptation to crash UDC's open house with a printout of this thread is high...

[worldtraveler]

What 1L is writing a trial brief? OP keeps talking about working on one.

[A. Nony Mouse]

We wrote a trial brief in my 1L LRW class. I don't think I've ever seen one in practice, but some schools seem to make you write them.

[spleenworship]

We wrote a trial brief in my 1L LRW class. I don't think I've ever seen one in practice, but some schools seem to make you write them.

This.

Though I have seen trial briefs requested in state court during a civil bench trial. Once.

[sublime]

..

[chuckbass]

Where did VAUDC2016 go? We want more info.

[spleenworship]

Where did VAUDC2016 go? We want more info.

When he/she realized they'd been outed as both an adcomm and a retard she/he fled back to the cozy admissions office to collect a paycheck to continue to run their con game on poorly informed suckers and the desperate.

[ManoftheHour]

Where did VAUDC2016 go? We want more info.

I genuinely want to know what a "PPPP" is.

Lmao...this place is TTTT, dawg.

What difference does it make if it's a TTTT or even a PPPP for that matter?

[Tanicius]

Where did VAUDC2016 go? We want more info.

I genuinely want to know what a "PPPP" is.

Lmao...this place is TTTT, dawg.

What difference does it make if it's a TTTT or even a PPPP for that matter?

My theory: A Piss Poor Pot of Poop. Motion from here on out to use PPPP to refer to schools that go beyond Third Tier Toilet in terribleness. Use it sparingly, to properly designate the worst of the worst, like JFK Law, Barry, Cooley, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

[beepboopbeep]

My theory: A Piss Poor Pot of Poop. Motion from here on out to use PPPP to refer to schools that go beyond Third Tier Toilet in terribleness. Use it sparingly, to properly designate the worst of the worst, like JFK Law, Barry, Cooley, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

Seconded.

[cron1834]

Best thread in months. Just wished I could've been here when it was hot.

Where did VAUDC2016 go? We want more info.

I guess our work here is done ...

[mu13ski]

Contact:
lawadmission@udc.edu
Phone: (202) 274-7341

Someone should send the link to this thread to that email address.

This.

Also, I hope OP comes back so I can read the word 'scant' a few more times.

[spleenworship]

My theory: A Piss Poor Pot of Poop. Motion from here on out to use PPPP to refer to schools that go beyond Third Tier Toilet in terribleness. Use it sparingly, to properly designate the worst of the worst, like JFK Law, Barry, Cooley, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

Seconded.

I straight up LOL'd.

[ManoftheHour]

My theory: A Piss Poor Pot of Poop. Motion from here on out to use PPPP to refer to schools that go beyond Third Tier Toilet in terribleness. Use it sparingly, to properly designate the worst of the worst, like JFK Law, Barry, Cooley, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

Seconded.

[VAUDC2016]

I'm sorry I have not got back to you sooner. But please be advised: this is my last post as I am a law student and do not have much leisure time. I am sorry and surprised so many of you are confused by my arguments. Let me walk through them one by one:

FAQ:

1) How are they “scant statistics”?

Let me start off by defining scant: barely sufficient or adequate.

Now let me replace the word “scant” by its definition: The data is “barely sufficient or adequate” for producing reliable predictions. Likewise they are certainly “barely sufficient or adequate” for providing strong, general conclusions.

So that is what I mean by the data is “scant”.

I hope now that I've explained why I used the word (based on its primary definition) certain readers will no longer be confused.

2) How are the statistics “sample averages”?

Let's ask ourselves: what is a “sample average”?

Middle school math should kick in and you should remember something like “mean”. That is: all the numbers added together, divided by the total.

For example: the mean of 1, 2, 3 is 1+2+3=6/3=2.

Likewise, the percentages stated, I would think, are the sum of 1s for employed students and 0s for the unemployed divided by the total. i.e. a “sample average”.

I hope this clears up confusion.

3) What's wrong with “sample averages”?

Well, I take issue with “sample averages” because they often form an unreliable basis for predictions. I mentioned many different reasons on the forum, but let me offer an entirely new example (since some people complained I was being repetitive).

I offered many reasons for why sample means are “scant”, one being because they don't take into effect third variables. Consider, for instance, those who go to Harvard and other 'top law schools' are generally those who are more motivated/driven/intelligent. Wouldn't you think that their employment would be more of a reflection of that same motivation/drive/intelligence that caused them to go to Harvard in the first place?

That is one of several reasons why you should not, as a general matter, form unshakeable contentions based solely on those numbers. There's more going on that the numbers don't capture.

4) How are the clinics “unique” at UDC when most other schools also have them?

I suppose since I'm just a law student and I haven't visited many other schools in the country, I can only suspect UDC's clinical program is very unique. To correct another poster's assumption, 1Ls do not generally participate in UDC's clinic, but we do perform a lot of volunteering for the DC community (often times the most vulnerable segments); it certainly offers not only immense humility, but also invaluable experience.

As far as clinics are concerned, I can confirm that they have a very special place in the university. To my understanding, they use nearly the entire 3rd floor of the building for their many programs. Additionally, both students and faculty invest themselves wholeheartedly, which creates a general sense of pride within the school community. This, I can only suspect, is unique.

5) Was I comparing UDC to Harvard, Stanford, etc.?

Actually, no. This assertion was made by another user alone. However, I did ask the question: 'can you name another non-Ivy League school (because it would be unfair to compare us to Harvard) that has a more distinguished and diverse faculty?' I think it's a stupid question so I regret asking it. How do you quantify how distinguished a professor is?

What I meant to is: “name one non-Ivy League school that can offer something UDC can't?” I know some people may respond with a quick “jobs” but may I refer you to FAQ #2 and 3 “sample averages” and my discussion of how it could be effected by “third variables”?

Note: Among the other arguments I've made in this thread, I think a lot of you would agree that the same motivation/determination/intelligence that causes students to go to Harvard is probably the same factors that contributed to their employment. Given the unreliable inferences that can be made from “sample means” (speaking generally) you would not be wise in attributing unemployment to the school's standard of education.

6) Am I an “adcomm”?

I am in no way an “adcomm”, I am a 1L. I don't know how to substantiate this with evidence on this forum, and I would ask for suggestions, however this will be my final post.

I appreciate your interest in the post. I hope you consider UDC as the tuition is low, standard of education is high, DC's a great place to live... through and through, I genuinely believe UDC has a lot to offer to prospective students. It's your future and so you would only be hurting yourself by not exploring all reasonable options (and UDC is certainly one).

PS. I believe there is still time to sign up for the open house on March 22!

[chuckbass]

UDC is PPPP.

[Ramius]

I'm sorry I have not got back to you sooner. But please be advised: this is my last post as I am a law student and do not have much leisure time. I am sorry and surprised so many of you are confused by my arguments. Let me walk through them one by one:

FAQ:

1) How are they “scant statistics”?

Let me start off by defining scant: barely sufficient or adequate.

Now let me replace the word “scant” by its definition: The data is “barely sufficient or adequate” for producing reliable predictions. Likewise they are certainly “barely sufficient or adequate” for providing strong, general conclusions.

So that is what I mean by the data is “scant”.

I hope now that I've explained why I used the word (based on its primary definition) certain readers will no longer be confused.

2) How are the statistics “sample averages”?

Let's ask ourselves: what is a “sample average”?

Middle school math should kick in and you should remember something like “mean”. That is: all the numbers added together, divided by the total.

For example: the mean of 1, 2, 3 is 1+2+3=6/3=2.

Likewise, the percentages stated, I would think, are the sum of 1s for employed students and 0s for the unemployed divided by the total. i.e. a “sample average”.

I hope this clears up confusion.

3) What's wrong with “sample averages”?

Well, I take issue with “sample averages” because they often form an unreliable basis for predictions. I mentioned many different reasons on the forum, but let me offer an entirely new example (since some people complained I was being repetitive).

I offered many reasons for why sample means are “scant”, one being because they don't take into effect third variables. Consider, for instance, those who go to Harvard and other 'top law schools' are generally those who are more motivated/driven/intelligent. Wouldn't you think that their employment would be more of a reflection of that same motivation/drive/intelligence that caused them to go to Harvard in the first place?

That is one of several reasons why you should not, as a general matter, form unshakeable contentions based solely on those numbers. There's more going on that the numbers don't capture.

4) How are the clinics “unique” at UDC when most other schools also have them?

I suppose since I'm just a law student and I haven't visited many other schools in the country, I can only suspect UDC's clinical program is very unique. To correct another poster's assumption, 1Ls do not generally participate in UDC's clinic, but we do perform a lot of volunteering for the DC community (often times the most vulnerable segments); it certainly offers not only immense humility, but also invaluable experience.

As far as clinics are concerned, I can confirm that they have a very special place in the university. To my understanding, they use nearly the entire 3rd floor of the building for their many programs. Additionally, both students and faculty invest themselves wholeheartedly, which creates a general sense of pride within the school community. This, I can only suspect, is unique.

5) Was I comparing UDC to Harvard, Stanford, etc.?

Actually, no. This assertion was made by another user alone. However, I did ask the question: 'can you name another non-Ivy League school (because it would be unfair to compare us to Harvard) that has a more distinguished and diverse faculty?' I think it's a stupid question so I regret asking it. How do you quantify how distinguished a professor is?

What I meant to is: “name one non-Ivy League school that can offer something UDC can't?” I know some people may respond with a quick “jobs” but may I refer you to FAQ #2 and 3 “sample averages” and my discussion of how it could be effected by “third variables”?

Note: Among the other arguments I've made in this thread, I think a lot of you would agree that the same motivation/determination/intelligence that causes students to go to Harvard is probably the same factors that contributed to their employment. Given the unreliable inferences that can be made from “sample means” (speaking generally) you would not be wise in attributing unemployment to the school's standard of education.

6) Am I an “adcomm”?

I am in no way an “adcomm”, I am a 1L. I don't know how to substantiate this with evidence on this forum, and I would ask for suggestions, however this will be my final post.

I appreciate your interest in the post. I hope you consider UDC as the tuition is low, standard of education is high, DC's a great place to live... through and through, I genuinely believe UDC has a lot to offer to prospective students. It's your future and so you would only be hurting yourself by not exploring all reasonable options (and UDC is certainly one).

PS. I believe there is still time to sign up for the open house on March 22!

Thanks VAUDC2016, this thread could be worth at least 3 more pages if you could just keep this up. Your delusion and complete disregard for basic statistics and how "sample average" differs from "average" and why this number is important in making this decision is insanely entertaining.

You are a gem in TLS and this is easily one of the best, most entertaining threads of 2014 so far. Good job and keep that wool pulled tightly over your eyes.

ETA: by average, I mean a population average, ie a comprehensive data set, if that is unclear.

[bjsesq]

FAQ:

1) How are they “scant statistics”?

Let me start off by defining scant: barely sufficient or adequate.

Now let me replace the word “scant” by its definition: The data is “barely sufficient or adequate” for producing reliable predictions. Likewise they are certainly “barely sufficient or adequate” for providing strong, general conclusions.

So that is what I mean by the data is “scant”.

I hope now that I've explained why I used the word (based on its primary definition) certain readers will no longer be confused.

So, the statistics that showed his schools employment outcomes are not good predictors of his school's employment outcomes. You heard it here first, people. I really want this person to get AIDS.

[Ricky-Bobby]

FAQ:

1) How are they “scant statistics”?

Let me start off by defining scant: barely sufficient or adequate.

Now let me replace the word “scant” by its definition: The data is “barely sufficient or adequate” for producing reliable predictions. Likewise they are certainly “barely sufficient or adequate” for providing strong, general conclusions.

So that is what I mean by the data is “scant”.

I hope now that I've explained why I used the word (based on its primary definition) certain readers will no longer be confused.

So, the statistics that showed his schools employment outcomes are not good predictors of his school's employment outcomes. You heard it here first, people. I really want this person to get AIDS.

Usually I just hope they get gonorrhea because its treatable, but to each his own, I guess.

But we'll never know about it because that was his last post. You see, he's a law student and doesn't have much leisure time.

[spleenworship]

FAQ:

1) How are they “scant statistics”?

Let me start off by defining scant: barely sufficient or adequate.

Now let me replace the word “scant” by its definition: The data is “barely sufficient or adequate” for producing reliable predictions. Likewise they are certainly “barely sufficient or adequate” for providing strong, general conclusions.

So that is what I mean by the data is “scant”.

I hope now that I've explained why I used the word (based on its primary definition) certain readers will no longer be confused.

So, the statistics that showed his schools employment outcomes are not good predictors of his school's employment outcomes. You heard it here first, people. I really want this person to get AIDS.

Usually I just hope they get gonorrhea because its treatable, but to each his own, I guess.

But we'll never know about it because that was his last post. You see, he's a law student and doesn't have much leisure time.

Gonorrhea is becoming untreatable due to antibiotic resistance apparently. Just FYI. Everybody wrap that shit up.


Also, OP (who I will now start calling "Corky") how do you explain the fact that UDCs stats have been abysmally low for the last 5 years? That's not a small sample size. That's a clear trend that supports, unequivocally, the fact that any intelligent and informed law student would rather get gonorrhea than go to UDC... Even if it is untreatable.

[daleearnhardt123]

FAQ:

1) How are they “scant statistics”?

Let me start off by defining scant: barely sufficient or adequate.

Now let me replace the word “scant” by its definition: The data is “barely sufficient or adequate” for producing reliable predictions. Likewise they are certainly “barely sufficient or adequate” for providing strong, general conclusions.

So that is what I mean by the data is “scant”.

I hope now that I've explained why I used the word (based on its primary definition) certain readers will no longer be confused.

So, the statistics that showed his schools employment outcomes are not good predictors of his school's employment outcomes. You heard it here first, people. I really want this person to get AIDS.

Usually I just hope they get gonorrhea because its treatable, but to each his own, I guess.

But we'll never know about it because that was his last post. You see, he's a law student and doesn't have much leisure time.

Gonorrhea is becoming untreatable due to antibiotic resistance apparently. Just FYI. Everybody wrap that shit up.


Also, OP (who I will now start calling "Corky") how do you explain the fact that UDCs stats have been abysmally low for the last 5 years? That's not a small sample size. That's a clear trend that supports, unequivocally, the fact that any intelligent and informed law student would rather get gonorrhea than go to UDC... Even if it is untreatable.

OP did explain this, didnt you read? UDC students are on the whole unmotivated! They dont try to get/dont want to get jobs! But if YOU go to UDC, and YOU'RE motivated, you're golden.

[03152016]

To anyone considering UDC based on what this adcomm is saying, maybe you should check out these testimonials from UDC alumni:

By far one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. That's what I get for falling back on "get a law degree" myth, especially from this dump of school. However, if you don't mind taking a year and half to learn what most school teach in the first semester of 1L year than by all means waste your money. This is of course because of the dearth of electives you could take to keep to your law school career somewhat interesting. But if you like classes taught by professors with ethics violations in their previous fields of employment I welcome to you try it out. If you find working with the public as a broke attorney (since you'll eventually need some of the same services your not only helping clients you're doing some personal research) or doing document review to subsist then be my guest. Also, let me not forget to mention that whenever somebody decides to ask you where you go to school don't forget the small ball of pride you swallow each time you have to explain what and where "UDC" is with the hope that it being located in the country's capital, that it will somewhat justify why you attend the worst law school in DC. I implore you if this is your only option and you really love law be a paralegal. Less debt and more options.

As an alumni of DCSL I am so ashamed of its reputation I never tell people I even have a JD. I got into the school with a pitiful LSAT but a decent undergrad GPA. I found the profs and administration to be sub-par (I am being kind). Most fellow students were same as me only law school to accept them (my guess, from experience is the same with the profs). But the smart ones completed first year then easily transfer to better school. As an "older" student the demographics of the school was a good fit. Besides basic study of law the clinical work was underwhelming (seriously I had to represent a "client" appealing a denied SSDI claim.....His disability was he was a DRUNK. Then when we/I LOST the appeal I was chastised by profs and fellow students????? He was a DRUNK folks not disabled according to SS regs. To be fair I did have a couple good profs and a few good clinical expierences. However, a large part of my 3 years was spent "begging" local and govt officials for funding for the school and then reach out to alumni to continue the "begging". A running joke with a close friend who also attended, graduated, and could not get legal job is that if he annoys me I will let the school know his address:)

I was an early graduate of Antioch School of Law. Although in its early days, it had its bright and shiny moment in the sun, it fell very quickly into the toilet bowl.

Later, it was always a challenge to explain my matriculation there to anyone interested in me professionally. It was - figuratively and literally -- an albatross around my neck that I was always able to surmount, overcome fortunately.

UDC has a horrible reputation in the DC area so it is harder to transfer in the DC area, there are some schools who will absolutely not accept UDC students [...] I had to keep transferring a secret or the professors and administration will not help you with anything. Furthermore, my experience at UDC was so bad that I withdrew from the insitution after I received my grades, even before I was accepted to any law school. I reasoned that I would rather not go back to that school, even if it means ending my legal career.

I personally feel if I had not attended UDC I would have had a much better legal career. I would strongly suggest you chose a different school as you will not realize how bad this one is, until you are there.

Many intelligent, driven, motivated people find themselves unemployed after attending much better schools than UDC. This adcomm posing as a 1L should be absolutely ashamed of him or herself for helping UDC swindle hundreds of victims a year.

[John Everyman]

To anyone considering UDC based on what this adcomm is saying, maybe you should check out these testimonials from UDC alumni:

By far one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. That's what I get for falling back on "get a law degree" myth, especially from this dump of school. However, if you don't mind taking a year and half to learn what most school teach in the first semester of 1L year than by all means waste your money. This is of course because of the dearth of electives you could take to keep to your law school career somewhat interesting. But if you like classes taught by professors with ethics violations in their previous fields of employment I welcome to you try it out. If you find working with the public as a broke attorney (since you'll eventually need some of the same services your not only helping clients you're doing some personal research) or doing document review to subsist then be my guest. Also, let me not forget to mention that whenever somebody decides to ask you where you go to school don't forget the small ball of pride you swallow each time you have to explain what and where "UDC" is with the hope that it being located in the country's capital, that it will somewhat justify why you attend the worst law school in DC. I implore you if this is your only option and you really love law be a paralegal. Less debt and more options.

As an alumni of DCSL I am so ashamed of its reputation I never tell people I even have a JD. I got into the school with a pitiful LSAT but a decent undergrad GPA. I found the profs and administration to be sub-par (I am being kind). Most fellow students were same as me only law school to accept them (my guess, from experience is the same with the profs). But the smart ones completed first year then easily transfer to better school. As an "older" student the demographics of the school was a good fit. Besides basic study of law the clinical work was underwhelming (seriously I had to represent a "client" appealing a denied SSDI claim.....His disability was he was a DRUNK. Then when we/I LOST the appeal I was chastised by profs and fellow students????? He was a DRUNK folks not disabled according to SS regs. To be fair I did have a couple good profs and a few good clinical expierences. However, a large part of my 3 years was spent "begging" local and govt officials for funding for the school and then reach out to alumni to continue the "begging". A running joke with a close friend who also attended, graduated, and could not get legal job is that if he annoys me I will let the school know his address:)

I was an early graduate of Antioch School of Law. Although in its early days, it had its bright and shiny moment in the sun, it fell very quickly into the toilet bowl.

Later, it was always a challenge to explain my matriculation there to anyone interested in me professionally. It was - figuratively and literally -- an albatross around my neck that I was always able to surmount, overcome fortunately.

UDC has a horrible reputation in the DC area so it is harder to transfer in the DC area, there are some schools who will absolutely not accept UDC students [...] I had to keep transferring a secret or the professors and administration will not help you with anything. Furthermore, my experience at UDC was so bad that I withdrew from the insitution after I received my grades, even before I was accepted to any law school. I reasoned that I would rather not go back to that school, even if it means ending my legal career.

I personally feel if I had not attended UDC I would have had a much better legal career. I would strongly suggest you chose a different school as you will not realize how bad this one is, until you are there.

Many intelligent, driven, motivated people find themselves unemployed after attending much better schools than UDC. This adcomm posing as a 1L should be absolutely ashamed of him or herself for helping UDC swindle hundreds of victims a year.

But...but...the third variables!!