Top Law Schools

other 2, do you think I could transfer to a Top 20 program after 1L if I had a 2.5 UG gpa?

after your 1L only your grades and class ranking matter. You also need exceptional letters of recommendation from your professors. Your best lsat may be a soft. That being said, its very unpredictable to transfer. UG means nothing- schools care about law grades not undergrad.

where are you at school now and what is class rank? and URM?

Don't take the LSAT again. That's just silly.

no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

I sense trouble on your horizons.

in before the storm.

megaTTTron wrote:in before the storm.

+1

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.

James Bond wrote:

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.

To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.

BrownBears09 wrote:

James Bond wrote:

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.

To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.

what are you talking about?

BrownBears09 wrote:

James Bond wrote:

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.

To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.

Because gunning for 2 months is a B and 8 hours of sleep deprived cramming is an A.

BrownBears09 wrote:

James Bond wrote:

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.

To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.

and again, in before the storm.

EDIT: DAMN, missed it by two!

ED to GULC part time ???

i am actually jewish and a tad native american...and irish...do those things count as underrepresented?

James Bond wrote:

BrownBears09 wrote:

James Bond wrote:

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.

To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.

what are you talking about?

A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

BrownBears09 wrote:
A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

really? I mean, really?

BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

Apparently one can go to an Ivy league school and still make silly mistakes. Don't worry, I won't hold them against you. Let this be a learning experience.

In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.

BrownBears09 wrote: A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:

A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that one event caused another even though the second event preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.

sundance95 wrote:

BrownBears09 wrote: A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:

A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that an action caused another although the second action preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.

sundance95 wrote:

BrownBears09 wrote: A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:

A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that one event caused another even though the second event preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.

Hahahaha! I just had a flashback to Saturday.

James Bond wrote:

BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.

True story. Instead of law, did you pursue into politics?

Btw, I choose F. Question author is fellow 0L and capable of bias

BrownBears09 wrote:

James Bond wrote:

BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.

True story. Instead of law, did you pursue into politics?

Yes. I'm currently a Senator

jcunni5 wrote:ED to GULC part time ???

can you do that?

jblev2 wrote:

jcunni5 wrote:ED to GULC part time ???

can you do that?

After looking around their website, I haven't come across anything that says you can't. There is also potential to go FT after your first year. Call to be sure I suppose.