This is Horrifying... Forum

[vanwinkle]

Most convictions that are overturned are more victims of the entire justice system than their lawyers. You can't load up the case load of the public defender and expect him/her to defend effectively. That has nothing to do with the quality of the lawyer and more to do with the resources given to the lawyer/defendant.

This is true. I've met PDs from T10 law schools and PDs from Tier-2 law schools and they were both equally overworked and unable to handle their workloads. Some jobs, it doesn't matter how much skill you bring, you just can't do everything they ask of you.

That is one of the biggest issues with the criminal justice system. Innocent but indigent people who gets caught up in the justice system have no faith in their PD and their chances, so they usually plead out instead of risking trial. I really wonder how many felons actually agreed to plead to felonies even though they did not commit the crime. Can't blame the lawyers though. It must be really frustrating.

Maybe they should build some PD specific law schools that subsidizes the tuition in exchange for a few years of PD service at modest salaries.

You don't need specific law schools for this, just specific funding programs. Honestly, IBR may accomplish this. As long as you're willing to commit 10 years to PD service (or to not move from there into the private sector at least) you can get the bulk of your tuition paid off at the end of that 10 years. This is the way I'm planning to go.

[vanwinkle]

I never said that one exam[ple was representative in the literal sense. Anyone knows that it usually isn't. So I am not arguing that point. What I am saying, for the third time, is that the argfuments I am refuting were themselves based on unrepresentative samples, obviating my need to go very far in refuting them.

You're arguing that you can refute unrepresentative samples with unrepresentative samples, and that's okay because what you're refuting is unrepresentative samples?

Sorry, dude, you make no sense.

[honestabe84]

I guess a good question is whether or not the law school determines future success anymore than your undergrad does.

I know that as far as business is concerned, you don't need a degree from HYP to start up a highly successful enterprise. Those schools will get your foot in the door for some middle-management position at a corporation, but if you don't know how to start and run your own business, you're screwed.

You speak as if people can simply go to any law school and start their own practice, or do something very innovative and "make it," as long as they have the know how. Terrible reasoning, because it's so obvious. If someone actually had the funds and the innovative ideas to do this, then obviously it doesn't apply to them.

What about the rest of the few hundred thousand graduates of TTT and TTTT?

I was not trying to say that was true. I was just asking a question.

[boss]

The ABA should balls up and close at least 25 law schools. Let's get real here, the glut of worthless law schools is shameful.

Law schools should also start modeling themselves after medical schools and start interviewing each and every candidate. Half the people who are great sounding on paper are real life assholes.

[honestabe84]

The ABA should balls up and close at least 25 law schools. Let's get real here, the glut of worthless law schools is shameful.

Law schools should also start modeling themselves after medical schools and start interviewing each and every candidate. Half the people who are great sounding on paper are real life assholes.

I wish they would do that to, but I think there are just too many people in the law school student body. From what I understand there are not nearly as many med students at a given school than there are law students.

As much as I dislike the AMA, I think ABA could learn a thing or two from them. The ABA has allowed the entire legal profession to become a complete and utter joke whereby anyone with a brain stem can become a lawyer. You actually have to be hardworking and intelligent to get into most medical schools.

[Pearalegal]

As much as I dislike the AMA, I think ABA could learn a thing or two from them. The ABA has allowed the entire legal profession to become a complete and utter joke whereby anyone with a brain stem can become a lawyer. You actually have to be hardworking and intelligent to get into most medical schools.

And very, very dedicated. Any major can go into law school after taking any sort of classes. You've gotta WORK to even qualify to apply to med school.

Which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing.

[honestabe84]

As much as I dislike the AMA, I think ABA could learn a thing or two from them. The ABA has allowed the entire legal profession to become a complete and utter joke whereby anyone with a brain stem can become a lawyer. You actually have to be hardworking and intelligent to get into most medical schools.

And very, very dedicated. Any major can go into law school after taking any sort of classes. You've gotta WORK to even qualify to apply to med school.

Which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing.

Yes. I don't know a WHOLE lot about medical school, but I'm pretty sure you would not have chance at getting accepted with a 2.9 GPA (even though its in Bio) no matter what your MCAT score is. In law school you can major in psyche or criminal justice, get a 2.9, score a 173 on the LSAT, and still get into at least a tier 1.

[Pearalegal]

Yes. I don't know a WHOLE lot about medical school, but I'm pretty sure you would not have chance at getting accepted with a 2.9 GPA (even though its in Bio) no matter what your MCAT score is. In law school you can major in psyche or criminal justice, get a 2.9, score a 173 on the LSAT, and still get into at least a tier 1.

Right, agreed. You also have a LOT of required UG courses which are hardly cakewalks.

[D. H2Oman]

Yes. I don't know a WHOLE lot about medical school, but I'm pretty sure you would not have chance at getting accepted with a 2.9 GPA (even though its in Bio) no matter what your MCAT score is. In law school you can major in psyche or criminal justice, get a 2.9, score a 173 on the LSAT, and still get into at least a tier 1.

Agreed. People with <3.0 gpa's getting into law school period is a fucking joke.

[jmhendri]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet in this thread, but for some people cheap, accessible law school fits right into their career goals. I have a friend who scored a 172 on the LSAT, had about a 3.2 or something undergrad gpa (philosophy major I think) and was having some success in a real estate career. His goal was to start his own investment company and, although he probably could have attended a pretty decent school with splitter numbers, he chose to pay out of pocket for a mostly online J.D. Although I resent the fact that he got the score I was shooting for and wasted it at Abraham Lincoln U, his goals were really only to learn about the law out of curiosity and possibly have the ability to write up a few of his own contracts.

[hannibalhamlin61]

Yes. I don't know a WHOLE lot about medical school, but I'm pretty sure you would not have chance at getting accepted with a 2.9 GPA (even though its in Bio) no matter what your MCAT score is. In law school you can major in psyche or criminal justice, get a 2.9, score a 173 on the LSAT, and still get into at least a tier 1.

Agreed. People with <3.0 gpa's getting into law school period is a fucking joke.

I'm glad you showed up H20. It seems like they were blatantly baiting you for this one...

[romothesavior]

Yes. I don't know a WHOLE lot about medical school, but I'm pretty sure you would not have chance at getting accepted with a 2.9 GPA (even though its in Bio) no matter what your MCAT score is. In law school you can major in psyche or criminal justice, get a 2.9, score a 173 on the LSAT, and still get into at least a tier 1.

Agreed. People with <3.0 gpa's getting into law school period is a fucking joke.

+1.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Yes. I don't know a WHOLE lot about medical school, but I'm pretty sure you would not have chance at getting accepted with a 2.9 GPA (even though its in Bio) no matter what your MCAT score is. In law school you can major in psyche or criminal justice, get a 2.9, score a 173 on the LSAT, and still get into at least a tier 1.

Sorry, people with sub 3.0's don't just up and get a 170+ on the LSAT.

[nealric]

Sorry, people with sub 3.0's don't just up and get a 170+ on the LSAT.

Of course they do. It's called being a splitter. Happens all the time.

[vanwinkle]

Sorry, people with sub 3.0's don't just up and get a 170+ on the LSAT.

I'm a 3.0/170, and I've known wider splitters than that on this board. It happens more than you think.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

O RLY? You misunderstood my point.

[Its on Seabass]

There are less law schools per capita in the U.S. right now than just about any time in the last 40 years. But these schools are still a rip off and students dont understand they are paying 30k a year plus col for a job that pays between 30 and 40k a year.

[pugalicious]

There are less law schools per capita in the U.S. right now than just about any time in the last 40 years. But these schools are still a rip off and students dont understand they are paying 30k a year plus col for a job that pays between 30 and 40k a year.

Maybe they have a back-up plan, like changing their names and running away to Mexico or becoming a Carnie. That's my back-up plan at least (not that I am going to a T2-T4!)

What about the online schools? Are they T5? Tinfinity?

[MD/JD2B]

I went to med school and now I'm going to law school, and then to an electronics school to get a tech. degree. All this so I can start the best topiary in the world. You've probably seen my early work in Disneyland--those well shaped bushes outside the "It's a small world" ride. To each his/her own.

[JTX]

x

[honestabe84]

O RLY? You misunderstood my point.

What's you point then. You don't need to be smart to get a good GPA, but you do need to be smart to get a good LSAT score. And people with sub 3.0 GPAs do up and get 170s all the time.

[hannibalhamlin61]

O RLY? You misunderstood my point.

What's you point then. You don't need to be smart to get a good GPA, but you do need to be smart to get a good LSAT score. And people with sub 3.0 GPAs do up and get 170s all the time.

By smart, you mean what? You're putting entirely too much faith in the LSAT.

[honestabe84]

O RLY? You misunderstood my point.

What's you point then. You don't need to be smart to get a good GPA, but you do need to be smart to get a good LSAT score. And people with sub 3.0 GPAs do up and get 170s all the time.

By smart, you mean what? You're putting entirely too much faith in the LSAT.

I'm not saying its an IQ test, because it's not. I do think that in general you do have to be smart to score in the 99%ile, though. Most average people cannot score that high.

[JTX]

x

[hannibalhamlin61]

By smart, you mean what? You're putting entirely too much faith in the LSAT.

^^ low LSAT sour grapes?

Actually a couple months of prep can do wonders for an LSAT score. Try making up for a shit GPA in one summer & get back to me.