BC/BU vs. UH as Houston Resident Forum

[mackoftexas]

Good luck duder

But please, please, please don't read any E&E's before law school starts

Thanks, but I have to ask why. Is it because the content in them is going to be more general or unnecessary compared to what they're going to teach us in class?

Did you email admissions or the Dean for the scholarship increase? I emailed the school with my new increased of score and have not heard anything back -- that was three days ago too!

I got the scholarship with my 161. I had talked on the phone with a professor after the admissions people set that up after hearing I wasn't going to attend this cycle due to the retake. On the phone I was very clear about how getting a higher LSAT would increase my likelihood of getting into UT and getting a better scholarship from them. At the time the scholarship amount they offered was around 40-46k, I can't remember. I won't say I was terse or rude, but I didn't hide my intentions about reapplying and retaking. Two weeks after April 15th, I got another e-mail offering the full ride. Had I gone against the advice here and accepted the money initially I would have shot myself in the foot.

As for your case, you should give them a call. Did you speak to the admissions office prior to the LSAT either on the phone or via e-mail regarding your retake?

[BigZuck]

It'll likely be confusing, there's a strong chance you'll learn stuff that is irrelevant or actually runs counter to how your prof wants you to think of things and thus actually be a detriment to your preparedness for law school.

But mostly it's just because life is too short to be reading E&E's when you're not even in law school.

[caseysho]

Good luck duder

But please, please, please don't read any E&E's before law school starts

Thanks, but I have to ask why. Is it because the content in them is going to be more general or unnecessary compared to what they're going to teach us in class?

Did you email admissions or the Dean for the scholarship increase? I emailed the school with my new increased of score and have not heard anything back -- that was three days ago too!

I got the scholarship with my 161. I had talked on the phone with a professor after the admissions people set that up after hearing I wasn't going to attend this cycle due to the retake. On the phone I was very clear about how getting a higher LSAT would increase my likelihood of getting into UT and getting a better scholarship from them. At the time the scholarship amount they offered was around 40-46k, I can't remember. I won't say I was terse or rude, but I didn't hide my intentions about reapplying and retaking. Two weeks after April 15th, I got another e-mail offering the full ride. Had I gone against the advice here and accepted the money initially I would have shot myself in the foot.

As for your case, you should give them a call. Did you speak to the admissions office prior to the LSAT either on the phone or via e-mail regarding your retake?

Not sure if your decision is final yet but I was in the same boat as you. Didn't get into UT last year but did my first year at BU (who jumped up to 20th in the rankings this past year) and transferred to UT (I will start in the fall). Making a lateral transfer is pretty simple so long as you make good grades (talking top 1/3). If you will have a valuable work option during the year off, its not a bad call, but if you are looking to get started now, transferring is a good idea. You can DM me if you have any questions. I really loved by time at BU and would recommend the school to anyone, it just wasn't the geographic area I was looking for.

[caseysho]

Others might disagree, but a UH MBA is not worth it.

They list their median exit salary as $62k. That's below the 25th percentile of reported salaries for UH law grads that report.

http://www.bauer.uh.edu/career-center/g ... -stats.php

Ouch. Is an MBA/JD viable in any circumstance? Money aside, if I didn't do a UH MBA but till wanted one, would it be (a) Reasonable to do so in terms of time and effort and (b) Possible given the demands of a law firm. Say one from Rice which is substantially higher ranked (and substantially more expensive) than UH.

The JD/MBA is controversial from what I hear: it may help you transition into in-house and even snag you some clients in the finance sector; it ma also signal to BigLaw employers that you don't intend to stick around, which makes it more difficult for them to invest in hiring you since many firms hiring with the goal that some associates stick around and generate revenue for their firm.

I think given the short length of most MBA programs, it wouldn't hurt to get your JD and work, and see if you'd want your MBA later to boost your employment stats.

I highly second this! We had networking events with BigLaw all the time and they all felt the same way: that a JD/MBA is a waste of money. You will take enough classes in law school to equip you with the business knowledge you need to know. Your internship programs also get a little messed up by the extra year so your chances at getting into BigLaw the traditional way (through an OCI program) decrease a little. I support the advice of getting an JD then MBA later on if you decide to go in-house or corporate.

[mackoftexas]

Others might disagree, but a UH MBA is not worth it.

They list their median exit salary as $62k. That's below the 25th percentile of reported salaries for UH law grads that report.

http://www.bauer.uh.edu/career-center/g ... -stats.php

Ouch. Is an MBA/JD viable in any circumstance? Money aside, if I didn't do a UH MBA but till wanted one, would it be (a) Reasonable to do so in terms of time and effort and (b) Possible given the demands of a law firm. Say one from Rice which is substantially higher ranked (and substantially more expensive) than UH.

The JD/MBA is controversial from what I hear: it may help you transition into in-house and even snag you some clients in the finance sector; it ma also signal to BigLaw employers that you don't intend to stick around, which makes it more difficult for them to invest in hiring you since many firms hiring with the goal that some associates stick around and generate revenue for their firm.

I think given the short length of most MBA programs, it wouldn't hurt to get your JD and work, and see if you'd want your MBA later to boost your employment stats.

I highly second this! We had networking events with BigLaw all the time and they all felt the same way: that a JD/MBA is a waste of money. You will take enough classes in law school to equip you with the business knowledge you need to know. Your internship programs also get a little messed up by the extra year so your chances at getting into BigLaw the traditional way (through an OCI program) decrease a little. I support the advice of getting an JD then MBA later on if you decide to go in-house or corporate.

Thanks for this, you'll be happy to know I decided against the MBA.

I've been reading some of the guides/articles regarding 0L prep, particularly this one http://www.top-law-schools.com/success- ... chool.html and this one http://www.top-law-schools.com/law-scho ... icle1.htmland both place a heavy emphasis on supplements.

I wanted to know what was other people's experience with hornbooks were, I do have the current E&E's for Torts and Contracts and a older version of Civil Procedure I'm considering updating.

I've also been getting ahead on the readings and most of these initial readings seem to be ultimately irrelevant to what will be on the final exam. However I also understand they are likely purposeful in getting us familiar with legal writing, the vocabulary, and active reading. To put it concisely, the author of the first article I linked compared his strategy of having a very lean and succinct outline based on the core reasoning. What attracts me to this method is that it hones in on what is meaningful and seems to be very useful on the test. My concern is that I might be losing something useful by not at least doing the usual method for a few weeks and secondly that I might miss certain things by skimming the case reading. Does anyone have experience with this method?

At my orientation, to be polite, the speakers and the 2L students we were this told us things that go contrary to TLS dogma, namely "Grade's don't matter as much as you think they do" and "Don't focus too much on the final exams right now". When I brought up employment statistics being about 57-60% on LST Score Reports they said they believed it was much higher than that. I do not mean to bash these people for saying these things as they might have good reason to, but I have trouble reconciling what I have learned thus far according to what I have heard at orientation. I understand to some degree they might be trying to whitewash it so people are less cutthroat, but for the most part it does not make sense to me. Has anyone had similar experiences?

[KunAgnis]

Others might disagree, but a UH MBA is not worth it.

They list their median exit salary as $62k. That's below the 25th percentile of reported salaries for UH law grads that report.

http://www.bauer.uh.edu/career-center/g ... -stats.php

Ouch. Is an MBA/JD viable in any circumstance? Money aside, if I didn't do a UH MBA but till wanted one, would it be (a) Reasonable to do so in terms of time and effort and (b) Possible given the demands of a law firm. Say one from Rice which is substantially higher ranked (and substantially more expensive) than UH.

The JD/MBA is controversial from what I hear: it may help you transition into in-house and even snag you some clients in the finance sector; it ma also signal to BigLaw employers that you don't intend to stick around, which makes it more difficult for them to invest in hiring you since many firms hiring with the goal that some associates stick around and generate revenue for their firm.

I think given the short length of most MBA programs, it wouldn't hurt to get your JD and work, and see if you'd want your MBA later to boost your employment stats.

I highly second this! We had networking events with BigLaw all the time and they all felt the same way: that a JD/MBA is a waste of money. You will take enough classes in law school to equip you with the business knowledge you need to know. Your internship programs also get a little messed up by the extra year so your chances at getting into BigLaw the traditional way (through an OCI program) decrease a little. I support the advice of getting an JD then MBA later on if you decide to go in-house or corporate.

Thanks for this, you'll be happy to know I decided against the MBA.

I've been reading some of the guides/articles regarding 0L prep, particularly this one http://www.top-law-schools.com/success- ... chool.html and this one http://www.top-law-schools.com/law-scho ... icle1.htmland both place a heavy emphasis on supplements.

I wanted to know what was other people's experience with hornbooks were, I do have the current E&E's for Torts and Contracts and a older version of Civil Procedure I'm considering updating.

I've also been getting ahead on the readings and most of these initial readings seem to be ultimately irrelevant to what will be on the final exam. However I also understand they are likely purposeful in getting us familiar with legal writing, the vocabulary, and active reading. To put it concisely, the author of the first article I linked compared his strategy of having a very lean and succinct outline based on the core reasoning. What attracts me to this method is that it hones in on what is meaningful and seems to be very useful on the test. My concern is that I might be losing something useful by not at least doing the usual method for a few weeks and secondly that I might miss certain things by skimming the case reading. Does anyone have experience with this method?

At my orientation, to be polite, the speakers and the 2L students we were this told us things that go contrary to TLS dogma, namely "Grade's don't matter as much as you think they do" and "Don't focus too much on the final exams right now". When I brought up employment statistics being about 57-60% on LST Score Reports they said they believed it was much higher than that. I do not mean to bash these people for saying these things as they might have good reason to, but I have trouble reconciling what I have learned thus far according to what I have heard at orientation. I understand to some degree they might be trying to whitewash it so people are less cutthroat, but for the most part it does not make sense to me. Has anyone had similar experiences?

To answer your first question - I don't believe in the benefit of supplements. They provide a more solid foundation for your studies but to excel beyond your classmates, you need to use your valuable time on other methods. For instance, when I was studying for Contracts (I think you mentioned Civil Procedure but the studying method itself may lend itself to similarities) I mostly focused on memorizing a handful of key cases (their factual background and legal holdings for about 15 - 20 cases; the exam was open book. If it's closed book, you need to memorize a lot more.) and then shoring up issue spotting. I even used hypos from other schools and professors from my school. I CALI'd the course at my T20. Being able to issue spot efficiently and delineating the issues and your stance is key skill - something you won't be doing with your supplements. That being said, if you are confused on the black letter law, they do help.

As far as your orientation experience goes, the school picks their best students and puts on a show. They're not going to put unemployed students in front of the incoming students and air horror stories, are they? Neither do most students memorize employment stats - to them, it's a non-issue once they got their jobs. As far as first year grades go, they're everything. If you can get into the top 5% of your class after 1st semester, you may land a big law job that will lead to a potential permanent employment. One semester for being able to relax and cruise for 5 - I'd say that's a nice trade. I would be sure to hit up upperclassmen, ask around for notes and outlines, and crush every class to ensure a good outcome for yourself. Better now than too late.

[mackoftexas]

I appreciate the response, can you clarify what you mean by 'CALI'd'?

Additionally, could you explain in a general sense how you approached studying? My plan right now is to try and stay at least a week ahead on the readings. Specifically doing a close reading and taking notes while doing so (I don't like marking in my books), then typing up the notes into a outline. As for cases I was considering trying to keep the briefs 1-2 pages long. Thanks again for the info, the key cases point will definitely come in handy.

[BigZuck]

I appreciate the response, can you clarify what you mean by 'CALI'd'?

Additionally, could you explain in a general sense how you approached studying? My plan right now is to try and stay at least a week ahead on the readings. Specifically doing a close reading and taking notes while doing so (I don't like marking in my books), then typing up the notes into a outline. As for cases I was considering trying to keep the briefs 1-2 pages long. Thanks again for the info, the key cases point will definitely come in handy.

I know it feels like what you're doing is the right thing to do and things can be professor dependent but for the most part briefing is pointless and there's a pretty good chance that reading cases is too.

The beginning of 1L is bewildering and you're probably not going to believe me, which is fine. But really all that matters is what your professor cares about and then spitting that back out to him/her on the final. By all means study how you want but be sure that you pace yourself and don't burn yourself out by the end because a lot of what you're doing right now is probably just wheel spinning/busy work in the name of "studying" or "staying on top of things" or "getting ahead" or "working hard" or whatever but it's not really going to help you on the final, which, of course, is literally all that matters.

I think a shiny new 1L should just be keeping up with the reading, going to class, and taking great notes. I don't think briefing ever needs to be done by anyone.

[mackoftexas]

I appreciate the response, can you clarify what you mean by 'CALI'd'?

Additionally, could you explain in a general sense how you approached studying? My plan right now is to try and stay at least a week ahead on the readings. Specifically doing a close reading and taking notes while doing so (I don't like marking in my books), then typing up the notes into a outline. As for cases I was considering trying to keep the briefs 1-2 pages long. Thanks again for the info, the key cases point will definitely come in handy.

I know it feels like what you're doing is the right thing to do and things can be professor dependent but for the most part briefing is pointless and there's a pretty good chance that reading cases is too.

The beginning of 1L is bewildering and you're probably not going to believe me, which is fine. But really all that matters is what your professor cares about and then spitting that back out to him/her on the final. By all means study how you want but be sure that you pace yourself and don't burn yourself out by the end because a lot of what you're doing right now is probably just wheel spinning/busy work in the name of "studying" or "staying on top of things" or "getting ahead" or "working hard" or whatever but it's not really going to help you on the final, which, of course, is literally all that matters.

I think a shiny new 1L should just be keeping up with the reading, going to class, and taking great notes. I don't think briefing ever needs to be done by anyone.

Everything you said makes sense and I agree with it. However, my plan was to try and stay a week or so ahead on the readings. I've gotten so much conflicting information regarding study habits that it is hard to determine what I ought to do at this point. Maybe it's better to ask what I should be doing, if anything, to prep.

[KunAgnis]

I appreciate the response, can you clarify what you mean by 'CALI'd'?

Additionally, could you explain in a general sense how you approached studying? My plan right now is to try and stay at least a week ahead on the readings. Specifically doing a close reading and taking notes while doing so (I don't like marking in my books), then typing up the notes into a outline. As for cases I was considering trying to keep the briefs 1-2 pages long. Thanks again for the info, the key cases point will definitely come in handy.

Sorry for the late reply, busy with job hunting. CALI means getting the highest grade in the class, most schools will have this award. I'm not sure what you mean by the page length - do you mean 1-2 per case? That sounds about right. I usually read the next week's reading during the prior weekend. So I think your pace sounds good - I usually just reviewed the notes before class started, talked to some people I thought had a good handle for their thoughts, and reviewed the notes after class. I started my outlines come October, and you'll definitely want to get good outlines whether it's via the phi alpha delta outline bank or finding upperclassmen. I found quite a few on TLS and they were more than willing to help. If not, reddit/r/lawschool has an outline bank. And take as many practice tests as you can - be sure to at least ask professors if they're willing to look over your practice answers. This is gold; if they refuse, no harm done. You'll need to be close with them to do this, so I suggest you go to office hours regularly. You'll have some parts of cases you won't understand (almost everyone I know did) and so visiting and asking a question should be easy. Hope this helps.