WUSTL Recent Grad (and others) Taking Questions Forum

[LexOmniaVincit]

I will be joining you guys next semester, and I am very exited about it! Here are some fun facts I found about Wash U Law, that I found interesting and that nudged me toward the law school.

WULSL is right behind Duke in placing its students in the elite litigations boutiques http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2012_Boutiques.shtml , it ranks 9th, ahead of Duke, for best law school for standard of living after graduation ( http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cypress ... ex.php#/34 ), and it does all of that while being the best law school for snatching a date ( http://www.businessinsider.com/washingt ... ife-2013-2 ).

Anyway, now that I have decide to attend the law school, I need to find a place where to live. So far, I have found two sources of information about apartments, Craigslist and Quadrangle ( http://quadrangle-postgrad.reslisting.com ). Are there any other ways to find APTs? Is there a better website?

And, how effective is the roommate-finding system put up by the school? If you find a roommate that route, when do you get to meet him or her? Is there anyone who can speak to me about her or his experience?

Thank you!

One person in 13 years. AWESOME.

Hi, Cellar-door,

I am not sure whether to interpret your comment as sarcastic or just a statement of fact. In case you meant it sarcastically, I would point out that "one person in 13 years" is also what UV and Duke can claim.

My point was that it is a useless stat because the sample size is tiny. No one gets those jobs outside of a few schools. This is like someone saying someone should use the fact that Cardozo got a Supreme Court clerk to evaluate it. You have better odds of being struck by lightning than getting one of those jobs out of WUSTL based on those stats (roughly 1 in 3000 v. 1 in 3300)

The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 1,107,143 ( http://discovertheodds.com/what-are-the ... lightning/ ). So, the odds of getting a job at one of the top five litigation boutiques are much better than being struck by lightning. About 336 times better, in fact.

While the statistic on its own doesn't really give a whole a lot of info on Wash U Law, it does have some utility as supplemental information to the data everyone reads. What it tells us is that a JD from Wash U Law can get you a job at one of those five law firms. And, if you are lucky, you could end up being interviewed by the Wash U grad who works in one of those firms, and who will most likely have a bias toward Wash U grads. The sample size being tiny doesn't change any of that. Further, this statistic also suggests that the top five firms seem to treat Duke, UV, and Wash U grads the same way, since they hired only one grad from each institution during the last 13yrs.

Thank you for your comments, though. Maybe other readers had your same reaction, and I needed to spell out why that statistic was relevant.

Good luck to you

[Cellar-door]

[
One person in 13 years. AWESOME.

Hi, Cellar-door,

I am not sure whether to interpret your comment as sarcastic or just a statement of fact. In case you meant it sarcastically, I would point out that "one person in 13 years" is also what UV and Duke can claim.

My point was that it is a useless stat because the sample size is tiny. No one gets those jobs outside of a few schools. This is like someone saying someone should use the fact that Cardozo got a Supreme Court clerk to evaluate it. You have better odds of being struck by lightning than getting one of those jobs out of WUSTL based on those stats (roughly 1 in 3000 v. 1 in 3300)

The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 1,107,143 ( http://discovertheodds.com/what-are-the ... lightning/ ). So, the odds of getting a job at one of the top five litigation boutiques are much better than being struck by lightning. About 336 times better, in fact.

While the statistic on its own doesn't really give a whole a lot of info on Wash U Law, it does have some utility as supplemental information to the data everyone reads. What it tells us is that a JD from Wash U Law can get you a job at one of those five law firms. And, if you are lucky, you could end up being interviewed by the Wash U grad who works in one of those firms, and who will most likely have a bias toward Wash U grads. The sample size being tiny doesn't change any of that. Further, this statistic also suggests that the top five firms seem to treat Duke, UV, and Wash U grads the same way, since they hired only one grad from each institution during the last 13yrs.

Thank you for your comments, though. Maybe other readers had your same reaction, and I needed to spell out why that statistic was relevant.

Good luck to you

Your odds are wrong. (or more accurately your odds are yearly based rather than lifetime where the odds are 1 in 3000).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... facts.html
https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svr ... tning/faq/

The relevance is still ridiculous. top 5 litigation boutiques is such a random thing to pull stats for, considering the tiny number of jobs they represent, and the huge toploading of those jobs to less than a half dozen schools.

I go to WUSTL, I like it. However thinking that employers consider WUSTL and Duke the same in any applicable context is wrong and misleading. Yes they might both be outliers in the tiny tiny market of top 5 lit boutiques, however there is good applicable data such as LST that will show you that Duke out places us in desirable outcomes (big law and art 3) 64-26.

I'm all for touting WUSTL when we do well, but cherry picking random stats then drawing the wrong conclusions from it is pointless.

[chuckbass]

Wustl is up to 33% now, not 26%.

[bulinus]

Hi, Cellar-door,

I am not sure whether to interpret your comment as sarcastic or just a statement of fact. In case you meant it sarcastically, I would point out that "one person in 13 years" is also what UV and Duke can claim.

My point was that it is a useless stat because the sample size is tiny. No one gets those jobs outside of a few schools. This is like someone saying someone should use the fact that Cardozo got a Supreme Court clerk to evaluate it. You have better odds of being struck by lightning than getting one of those jobs out of WUSTL based on those stats (roughly 1 in 3000 v. 1 in 3300)

The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 1,107,143 ( http://discovertheodds.com/what-are-the ... lightning/ ). So, the odds of getting a job at one of the top five litigation boutiques are much better than being struck by lightning. About 336 times better, in fact.

While the statistic on its own doesn't really give a whole a lot of info on Wash U Law, it does have some utility as supplemental information to the data everyone reads. What it tells us is that a JD from Wash U Law can get you a job at one of those five law firms. And, if you are lucky, you could end up being interviewed by the Wash U grad who works in one of those firms, and who will most likely have a bias toward Wash U grads. The sample size being tiny doesn't change any of that. Further, this statistic also suggests that the top five firms seem to treat Duke, UV, and Wash U grads the same way, since they hired only one grad from each institution during the last 13yrs.

Thank you for your comments, though. Maybe other readers had your same reaction, and I needed to spell out why that statistic was relevant.

Good luck to you

So I was going to post something snarky and self-congratulating in response to this, but you seem really earnest about law school and WashU, so no East Coast condescension for now. I really hope you aren't picking a law school based on a few disparate assessments you found online. Let's go through them in turn:

1. The boutique numbers. Signal, meet noise. You seem convinced that, small sample size or not, this data puts employment outcomes in this context as equivalent to UVA and Duke. I read it as being heavily weighted towards a few ultra elite schools, and beyond that, there are a few schools where going there gives you a non-zero chance of consideration. Like once in 13 years for all the graduates of a school. Even if that is the same as a few T14s, and I don't think it is, that is not a good reason to pick a school. Do you really think that, as an 0L, you are going to competitive for these gigs, or that you are actually going to want them? I personally don't find law school to be the grind everyone says it is, but, shit, even at WUSTL you are going to be going to school with a class where the median is a 3.7 UGPA and who scored 93-94 %tile on the LSATs. These are smart people who know how to study. And it all comes down to three three/four hour exams at the end of the semester. What you should be worried about is what happens if you come out of 1L in the bottom third of the class. You are not sniffing BigLaw with those numbers from WUSTL. With Duke or UVA, you at least have a puncher's chance of writing onto law review or interviewing like none other. That's the data you should be looking at: what happens people who don't get Latin honors.

2. The quality of life outcomes. You know the median salary figures reported by (most) schools are horseshit, right? I mean, they do what they need to do to be 'ethically' and legally viable when giving those numbers, but, amazingly, people who land 160K jobs right out of LS are happy to return surveys, while those making 45K don't. Do you really think that people coming out of Penn and Yale make the same money, median-wise, as kids from the prestigious Catholic University of America?

3. The social life report. Just, c'mon, no.

Like Cellar, I like WUSTL. The professors are mostly great, and I'm an IP person; they have enough resources to hire good people and maintain extracurriculars to keep me busy doing relevant things for 2L and 3L years. The externships also seem like a good use of time in most instances. And I applied in a law student's market, and like everybody in my class, got hooked up, scholarship-wise. But if you aren't from St. Louis, and you don't have any WE, and you are going for BigLaw, well, it's potentially going to be tough if you can't put yourself in the top 25% of the class. And, really, no one can predict that. I got fucked on torts in part because I simply cannot type as fast as the rest of the class. I'm a klutz. And that matters when you are only able to knock out ~2600 words in three hours, and people around you are dropping 8K. And I had no idea that was a thing until I took the exam.

So congrats on your admission. Make sure you know what you are getting into. Law school transparency is a start. I'm gonna go watch Girls now, so if you want to make fun of me for that, go nuts.

EDIT: This is completely snarky and self-congratulating. Sorry. I yam what I yam.

[lhanvt13]

I got fucked on torts in part because I simply cannot type as fast as the rest of the class. I'm a klutz. And that matters when you are only able to knock out ~2600 words in three hours, and people around you are dropping 8K. And I had no idea that was a thing until I took the exam.

--ImageRemoved--

dat type speed

[sublime]

..

[Birdnals]

I feel that way too. I mean, I haven't gotten fucked by it yet, but I am definitely concerned about it. I top out at about 1k words per hour. I like to pretend that many profs prefer less bullshit arguments, but I know that isn't true.

I only know of 2 instances when typing speed isn't a leg-up: Profs with exams with strict word-counts and profs who subtract points for BS arguments (I know of 1, but I am sure there are others)

[sublime]

..

[Birdnals]

Inazu was who I was talking about, and word dumps are 90% of why faster typing speed helps because some profs will have points for extremely minor issues or red herrings they want at least mentioned, so that is where the typing speed comes in handy. I can say from personal experience that I was consciously trying to make sure I didn't make weak arguments and I still lost a few points on his exam from them.

[chuckbass]

Inazu was who I was talking about, and word dumps are 90% of why faster typing speed helps because some profs will have points for extremely minor issues or red herrings they want at least mentioned, so that is where the typing speed comes in handy. I can say from personal experience that I was consciously trying to make sure I didn't make weak arguments and I still lost a few points on his exam from them.

What is considered a fast typing speed for LS?

[Birdnals]

Inazu was who I was talking about, and word dumps are 90% of why faster typing speed helps because some profs will have points for extremely minor issues or red herrings they want at least mentioned, so that is where the typing speed comes in handy. I can say from personal experience that I was consciously trying to make sure I didn't make weak arguments and I still lost a few points on his exam from them.

What is considered a fast typing speed for LS?

It 100% depends on the exam. For torts, I know plenty of people who were cranking out close to 80/wpm. But that involved lots of copy/pasting, and a pure racehorse exam like that is not the norm. I would say if you can crank out 40-50 WPM when called upon to do so you shouldn't be at any real disadvantage. Once you drop below 40 though I would suggest trying to improve it. This is also why even though (almost) all exams are open book, you have to have the material down-pat. Especially as a 1L.

[sublime]

..

[chuckbass]

Ok yeah I average 70-80 wpm so I didn't know if that was fast enough haha.

[Birdnals]

Torts is a completely different beast, because there is sooooo much copy/pasting. It is the only exam I brought/used a USB mouse for exactly that reason and it was a life saver. I usually max out my WPM at ~65 wpm for exam typing and I think got to ~16,000 words on my 3 hour torts exam from all the copy/pasting. I know at least 1 person who cranked out 21,000 on the same exam.

Also, I fucking HATE that examsoft doesn't give the red squiglys under misspelled words anymore and you have to go through the long spell check.

[sublime]

..

[fl0w]

everyone is emphasizing pure typing speed, but I feel like I should point out that speed is only part of the equation here. You need to have succinct statements of law. If your legal rule statement is more than a sentence (or two if there are factors considered) then you are wasting words.

speed comes in when you make sure to use all relevant facts. And all facts in your exam can be considered relevant, you just have to determine how. If you run into situations where you are excluding facts because you're running out of time, that's likely a typing speed problem, assuming you already fixed the succinct statements of law problem.

organization is also key. if you know how to organize an essay you spend less time rambling about garbage and are able to keep yourself on-task.

Following this kind of approach you should be able to hit even the minor nuances a prof may be looking for. Speed is a component of success here, but is not necessarily the determining factor.

[Birdnals]

Oh, if I wasn't clear, speed and pure word count is not in any way determinative of grade. I would say most exams have a floor that once you get below that word count there is simply no way you hit every issue, but other than that I truly believe low typing speed is something that can hurt you but can't really help you much.

I honestly believe organization and use of headings/typeface format is the biggest thing after knowing/having the ability to apply the law to facts. Every prof knows that word vomit disorganized thoughts is what people do when they are running out of time, so you might get a few extra points from that type of stuff but nothing substantial. The real points come from the Analyses section of IRAC formatting. If it is easy to follow (short paragraphs, headings before different sections, underlined case names if you prof wants case names, etc.) then all the better.

I was just saying having a faster typing speed can't hurt you and is one of the only things 0L's can do to prepare for law school. But as long as you can type above 40WPM I don't see typing speed almost ever being a reason for a lower grade.

[hoos89]

everyone is emphasizing pure typing speed, but I feel like I should point out that speed is only part of the equation here. You need to have succinct statements of law. If your legal rule statement is more than a sentence (or two if there are factors considered) then you are wasting words.

speed comes in when you make sure to use all relevant facts. And all facts in your exam can be considered relevant, you just have to determine how. If you run into situations where you are excluding facts because you're running out of time, that's likely a typing speed problem, assuming you already fixed the succinct statements of law problem.

organization is also key. if you know how to organize an essay you spend less time rambling about garbage and are able to keep yourself on-task.

Following this kind of approach you should be able to hit even the minor nuances a prof may be looking for. Speed is a component of success here, but is not necessarily the determining factor.

At the same time though, it is problematic if you're not able to hit 3k words on a 3 hour essay exam with no word limit. I don't understand how any law student in this generation could not top out at more than 60 wpm.

And Birdnals: 40 wpm is so, so slow in terms of max speed.

[Birdnals]

At the same time though, it is problematic if you're not able to hit 3k words on a 3 hour essay exam with no word limit. I don't understand how any law student in this generation could not top out at more than 60 wpm.

And Birdnals: 40 wpm is so, so slow in terms of max speed.

Agreed. That is the floor I would say, but even with some time for thought that would allow you to bang out a 6K 3 hour exam easy, which would be enough that I don't think it would be lack of words which hurt most any grade they got (except maybe a torts racehorse exam).

Obviously there is the: faster typing= more time for thinking/organizing/going over checklist= advantage on exam linkage.

I would say average for most law students I know is probably 65-70wpm for exam typing when called upon to do so, with it following a bell curve for faster/slower typers.

[fl0w]

At the same time though, it is problematic if you're not able to hit 3k words on a 3 hour essay exam with no word limit. I don't understand how any law student in this generation could not top out at more than 60 wpm.

And Birdnals: 40 wpm is so, so slow in terms of max speed.

Agreed. That is the floor I would say, but even with some time for thought that would allow you to bang out a 6K 3 hour exam easy, which would be enough that I don't think it would be lack of words which hurt most any grade they got (except maybe a torts racehorse exam).

Obviously there is the: faster typing= more time for thinking/organizing/going over checklist= advantage on exam linkage.

I would say average for most law students I know is probably 65-70wpm for exam typing when called upon to do so, with it following a bell curve for faster/slower typers.

i totally agree that wpm is important and that your estimates are about right in terms of good speed. i just wanted readers to understand that banging out words ALONE does not equal success and that high proficiency in those other essay writing skills matter a lot.

[lhanvt13]

Yea, I am at about 45 wpm.

I still can't believe Cuse dropped 16k words on his Torts exam. Fucking amazing.

10k words still much behind

[lhanvt13]

everyone is emphasizing pure typing speed, but I feel like I should point out that speed is only part of the equation here. You need to have succinct statements of law. If your legal rule statement is more than a sentence (or two if there are factors considered) then you are wasting words.

speed comes in when you make sure to use all relevant facts. And all facts in your exam can be considered relevant, you just have to determine how. If you run into situations where you are excluding facts because you're running out of time, that's likely a typing speed problem, assuming you already fixed the succinct statements of law problem.

organization is also key. if you know how to organize an essay you spend less time rambling about garbage and are able to keep yourself on-task.

Following this kind of approach you should be able to hit even the minor nuances a prof may be looking for. Speed is a component of success here, but is not necessarily the determining factor.

At the same time though, it is problematic if you're not able to hit 3k words on a 3 hour essay exam with no word limit. I don't understand how any law student in this generation could not top out at more than 60 wpm.

And Birdnals: 40 wpm is so, so slow in terms of max speed.

Max speed while typing should be around AT LEAST 80ish wpm.
Organizing and shit takes a while for me though, so I cap out at about 10k words on a 3 hour exam

[georgej]

How are you guys estimating your typing speed? Are you basing your numbers off of a typing test? Or arr you calculating for when you type something off the top of your head? For me, its a lot easier to type quickly if I am thinking about it and directly putting it on the page versus when I have to look at the screen and type exactly what's represented there. On internet typing tests I usually get between 65 and 70 wpm, but I feel that is not indicative of how my typing speed is when I type something that I am thinking about. If you can't tell by the jumbled and incohesive nature of this post, I am trying to type it as fast as I can, and I am a little upset that it might not make very much sense. Additionally, the nail on my right index finger is a little too long right now, and the feeling of repeatedly jamming it into the keys is disconcerting.

[Michael Bluth]

My advice would be: typing fast is important, but don't fetishize it.

I think there might be an analogy somewhere involving, say, Rick Ankiel and Greg Maddux.

Make sure you don't over-focus on it to your detriment.

[Unagi]

I'm thinking of registering for:

UCC Art. 2 (Greenfield)
Evidence (Rosen)
Trusts and Estates (Foster)
Preparing Commercial Agreements (Kruger)

Any thoughts on professors/courses? Tks