Even as a 0L, I know NYU LLM program is not that selective.Miracle wrote: He is attending NYU-maybe he's not dumb after all.
Didnt someone tell this guy that a NYU LLM in tax will not make up for a non top14 JD ITE?
Even as a 0L, I know NYU LLM program is not that selective.Miracle wrote: He is attending NYU-maybe he's not dumb after all.
Attending NYU for a LLM in taxes.... Why, just why? Also the international business thing from Columbia Grad School, what is he a degree collector? It seems this guy doesn't know what he wants or how to go about getting it. Now complaining to a reporter about it isn't the answer.Miracle wrote:He is attending NYU-maybe he's not dumb after all.fundamentallybroken wrote:He's also bitching about being 200k+ in debt. How the hell did he get intoHarlandBassett wrote:So this guy went to Columbia undergrad, Columbia grad school, UoF Law on a full scholarship, took some courses at Columbia Law, and now doing his NYU LLM in tax c/o 2012. He's all over the place with his career trajectory.Unitas wrote: What the hell is this:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gssc/faces/bohn-jason.shtml
The many faces seems about right for this guy. It appears like he took a few legal classes while at Columbia and said he attended columbia law which isn't true.lawany school being that dumb?
one's skillzzs come into play. and someone w/o *any* skillzzzs is going to fucked regardless of where they go.ResolutePear wrote:If you can't do it with CCN, chances are you can't do it with YHS.
All salary data collected by any organization will be "self-reported."NZA wrote:Data are self-reported for LST, correct? That would already throw some strange bias in there, probably even more than regular rankings/statistics, since those that would go out of their way to report are more likely to be making tons of skrillah.lawschooliseasy wrote:Agreed. The Lawschooltransparency data may be more accurate that what the schools themselves advertise, but its way too optimistic to be correct.Miracle wrote:In case you didn't know about it, there is one started by some Vandy people.
http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/[/quote
According to Lawschooltransparency, if you graduate within 75th percentile of Cardozo you earn 160,000? That doesn't seem accurate.
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
The data I looked at looked completely accurate. I even hand verified a couple using lists of employers from a couple of schools. Maybe you guys are just misinterpreting the data.lawschooliseasy wrote:Agreed. The Lawschooltransparency data may be more accurate that what the schools themselves advertise, but its way too optimistic to be correct.Miracle wrote:In case you didn't know about it, there is one started by some Vandy people.
http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/[/quote
According to Lawschooltransparency, if you graduate within 75th percentile of Cardozo you earn 160,000? That doesn't seem accurate.
Why is it always our fault?tkgrrett wrote:The data I looked at looked completely accurate. I even hand verified a couple using lists of employers from a couple of schools. Maybe you guys are just misinterpreting the data.lawschooliseasy wrote:Agreed. The Lawschooltransparency data may be more accurate that what the schools themselves advertise, but its way too optimistic to be correct.Miracle wrote:In case you didn't know about it, there is one started by some Vandy people.
http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/[/quote
According to Lawschooltransparency, if you graduate within 75th percentile of Cardozo you earn 160,000? That doesn't seem accurate.
Yeah, don't see how its at all overly optimistic to think that during the boom times when large New York firms had SA classes in the 100's, 20 or so percent of Cardozo's 363 students got big law jobs.tkgrrett wrote:The data I looked at looked completely accurate. I even hand verified a couple using lists of employers from a couple of schools. Maybe you guys are just misinterpreting the data.lawschooliseasy wrote:Agreed. The Lawschooltransparency data may be more accurate that what the schools themselves advertise, but its way too optimistic to be correct.Miracle wrote:In case you didn't know about it, there is one started by some Vandy people.
http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/[/quote
According to Lawschooltransparency, if you graduate within 75th percentile of Cardozo you earn 160,000? That doesn't seem accurate.
There has been a lot of confusion about what the Data Clearinghouse represents, but to clarify your points:Miracle wrote:Why is it always our fault?tkgrrett wrote:The data I looked at looked completely accurate. I even hand verified a couple using lists of employers from a couple of schools. Maybe you guys are just misinterpreting the data.lawschooliseasy wrote:Agreed. The Lawschooltransparency data may be more accurate that what the schools themselves advertise, but its way too optimistic to be correct.Miracle wrote:In case you didn't know about it, there is one started by some Vandy people.
http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/[/quote
According to Lawschooltransparency, if you graduate within 75th percentile of Cardozo you earn 160,000? That doesn't seem accurate.
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
I'd imagine most of those that strike out at OCI can find gainful employment.Desert Fox wrote:~30% of Columbia strikes out at OCI. There are unemployed Columbia grads.
Eventually? Yes.Patriot1208 wrote:I'd imagine most of those that strike out at OCI can find gainful employment.Desert Fox wrote:~30% of Columbia strikes out at OCI. There are unemployed Columbia grads.
Ya, I just meant that it's unlikely they are unemployed. But, sure, they may be in shit jobs.Desert Fox wrote:Eventually? Yes.Patriot1208 wrote:I'd imagine most of those that strike out at OCI can find gainful employment.Desert Fox wrote:~30% of Columbia strikes out at OCI. There are unemployed Columbia grads.
At good jobs that pay enough to pay off loans? No.
There are Uchi grads doing temp doc review in Chicago at this very moment.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
Lazy splitters.kpuc wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 18446.html
This article is about a Northwestern student. It's not Columbia, but it's T-14.
I think it was the NYT's way of showing that it isn't entirely the legal education system's failure. There are a lot of complete idiots who go into law school blind and come out without a clue how to pay for the years of education wasted on them. I suppose they could have found a better example of someone who did their research and still got screwed to balance it out.robotclubmember wrote: He is the least sympathetic poster boy that could have been selected for what is, in actuality, a serious problem in the legal profession. The NYT wrote a good piece, but by writing about Wallerstein, it kind of undermines the point that many students are legitimately mislead by data that is borderline fiction, and that level of debt without any kind of viable job prospects is potentiall catastrophic to thousands of students. I think most people who go into law school really are honest people that want to pave their own way make a good living for themselves and honor their debts, but they are woefully misguided. Thanks to the NYT, and this Wallerstein yokel, we all look like a joke now.
lol 50 resumes.ArchRoark wrote:Lazy splitters.kpuc wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 18446.html
This article is about a Northwestern student. It's not Columbia, but it's T-14.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
I think we all know that there are folks that are in this forum who got their 16* and have high hopes, will take out hundreds of thousands to pay for the best school they can, will end up bottom of their class, and will have to shoulder a load of debt. It's in the stats. You can't think that everyone is in the top of their class, that everyone is employed, and that everyone makes $150k. I find it interesting that TLS is an area that fosters blind optimism when it comes to after law school success.DEKOCARDS wrote:I think it was the NYT's way of showing that it isn't entirely the legal education system's failure. There are a lot of complete idiots who go into law school blind and come out without a clue how to pay for the years of education wasted on them. I suppose they could have found a better example of someone who did their research and still got screwed to balance it out.robotclubmember wrote: He is the least sympathetic poster boy that could have been selected for what is, in actuality, a serious problem in the legal profession. The NYT wrote a good piece, but by writing about Wallerstein, it kind of undermines the point that many students are legitimately mislead by data that is borderline fiction, and that level of debt without any kind of viable job prospects is potentiall catastrophic to thousands of students. I think most people who go into law school really are honest people that want to pave their own way make a good living for themselves and honor their debts, but they are woefully misguided. Thanks to the NYT, and this Wallerstein yokel, we all look like a joke now.
Because he wants to hear what those attorneys with models and bottles have to say..James Bond wrote:Lol why is the thread title in the form of a question?
That, and the article OP linked to is titled, "Is Law School a Losing Game?"ResolutePear wrote:Because he wants to hear what those attorneys with models and bottles have to say..James Bond wrote:Lol why is the thread title in the form of a question?
oh.
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login