CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Justice Stevens steps down
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Justice Stevens steps down - Page 2

post #51 of 59
4/11/10 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
My girlfriend (who I've mentioned a bunch lately but I swear she's real guys she lives in Canada*) is going to law school for a similar field. Ultimately, she wants to work for a fashion house or someplace like DC for intellectual property, and she knows that by being the very best in a small field, she'll stand out. Which is why she went with Cardozo, although she still plans to work her ass off and apply for the HSY triumverate if she's in the top five of her class in a year.

*not really
What's her undergrad in?
Reply
post #52 of 59
4/11/10 at 2:05pm
Dramatic Literature from NYU.
Reply
post #53 of 59
4/11/10 at 2:41pm
The better the school, the more likely you are to have done well as an undergrad and the more likely you are to have scored well on the LSAT. Are these things determinative that you are more intelligent and hardworking than someone at a lesser school? Are they determinative that you will make a better lawyer? No. But they are decent indicators.

Arguing otherwise is sour grapes, sorry fellas.

Furthermore, better schools offer better teachers, and often times a better variety of courses. Are these things determinative in laying the foundation for becoming a better lawyer? Of course not, but they certainly don't hurt when it comes to preparing you for your entry level jobs.

I go to a pretty damn good law school but we don't have any illusions that while we're good, we're not as good as some of the others.
Reply
post #54 of 59
4/11/10 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
The better the school, the more likely you are to have done well as an undergrad and the more likely you are to have scored well on the LSAT. Are these things determinative that you are more intelligent and hardworking than someone at a lesser school? Are they determinative that you will make a better lawyer? No. But they are decent indicators.

Arguing otherwise is sour grapes, sorry fellas.
You're right. Someone who scored a 155 without Kaplan is far less prepared to click Non Responsive on a doc review program than the kid who scored a 165 with Kaplan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
Furthermore, better schools offer better teachers, and often times a better variety of courses. Are these things determinative in laying the foundation for becoming a better lawyer? Of course not, but they certainly don't hurt when it comes to preparing you for your entry level jobs.
You're absolutely right here too! Again, the seminar on Military Law and the Executive Branch will absolutely prepare you to research Idaho law on the Landlord Tenant Act or how to put together a due diligence binder.

As for better teachers, really, how many ways can a professor get you to look at consideration differently? It's all the same materials, typically the same textbooks, and all the same concepts.

That being said, are there good professors at the "higher end" law schools? Absolutely. But there's also a fair share of shit, too. As there are at "lesser" law schools. I'll tell you this: I had far more advanced and in-depth training in tax law (arguably one of the more difficult branches of law) at my JD level classes while I attended a TTT, than I did at the top tier school during my LLM program.

The fact is legal education is pretty well standardized anywhere you go. There might be some bigger names at the higher end schools, but I doubt the overall education is that much better at places like Yale and Harvard. Civ Pro is Civ Pro.

Arguing otherwise is just an attempt to justify an overinflated sense of institutional worth. Sorry fellas.
Reply
post #55 of 59
4/11/10 at 5:33pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
It's interesting that neither of you discussed what Spook's point was. Namely, that top-tier schools are inherently better legal educators. Frankly, that's nonsense.
I didn't discuss Spook's point because I don't know how classes are taught in other law schools. I sat in on a few classes in different schools pre-1L, but I wasn't in a position to judge how the class was going. The only memorable thing about them was that more than half the class was on GChat or Facebook.

Quote:
And of course bigger "name" schools have better opportunities. Take advantage, that's fine. But no one owes you anything because you went to Harvard. You're not entitled to a Big Law job or a big salary. Thinking you deserve all of that, well, that just makes you a self-entitled douchebag.
Who said anything about deserving a great job? All I said was that graduating from a top-ranked school gives the average student a better chance at getting one of those highly-competitive jobs. With thousands of laid-off attorneys flooding the market, it's hard to imagine anyone feeling that they deserve a job solely because of their HYS degree.
Reply
post #56 of 59
4/12/10 at 12:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
You're right. Someone who scored a 155 without Kaplan is far less prepared to click Non Responsive on a doc review program than the kid who scored a 165 with Kaplan.



You're absolutely right here too! Again, the seminar on Military Law and the Executive Branch will absolutely prepare you to research Idaho law on the Landlord Tenant Act or how to put together a due diligence binder.

As for better teachers, really, how many ways can a professor get you to look at consideration differently? It's all the same materials, typically the same textbooks, and all the same concepts.

That being said, are there good professors at the "higher end" law schools? Absolutely. But there's also a fair share of shit, too. As there are at "lesser" law schools. I'll tell you this: I had far more advanced and in-depth training in tax law (arguably one of the more difficult branches of law) at my JD level classes while I attended a TTT, than I did at the top tier school during my LLM program.

The fact is legal education is pretty well standardized anywhere you go. There might be some bigger names at the higher end schools, but I doubt the overall education is that much better at places like Yale and Harvard. Civ Pro is Civ Pro.

Arguing otherwise is just an attempt to justify an overinflated sense of institutional worth. Sorry fellas.
My point wasn't that the education is so much different. You'll notice I placed very little emphasis on the difference in faculty and course selection, I just acknowledged that there is a difference and I think it does have an effect on the value of your education.

My main point was that the students at better law schools tend to have done better as undergrads, and better on the LSAT... and that although such factors are not determinative as to whether or not someone will make a good lawyer, they're pretty good indicators of the overall quality of the student body. I'll say a few things about the LSAT: 1) I wouldn't be surprised if most people at lower tier law schools took an LSAT prep course 2) an LSAT prep course will likely not improve your score quite that much (I didn't take one so I couldn't say) and 3) a 165 is most likely not going to get you anywhere near the "top ten".
Reply
post #57 of 59
4/12/10 at 9:40am
Guess who the Republican's (specifically Hatch) floated during the morning talk shows today? Hillary Clinton. Wonder is she is unhappy with Sec of State and is pulling in favors? Patrick Leahy thought she would be a great choice too. Hmmmm.
Reply
post #58 of 59
4/12/10 at 1:09pm
Don't forget that five years ago, senators thought Bush should appoint Alberto Gonzales.

Yeah....
Reply
post #59 of 59
4/23/10 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
My point wasn't that the education is so much different. You'll notice I placed very little emphasis on the difference in faculty and course selection, I just acknowledged that there is a difference and I think it does have an effect on the value of your education.

My main point was that the students at better law schools tend to have done better as undergrads, and better on the LSAT... and that although such factors are not determinative as to whether or not someone will make a good lawyer, they're pretty good indicators of the overall quality of the student body. I'll say a few things about the LSAT: 1) I wouldn't be surprised if most people at lower tier law schools took an LSAT prep course 2) an LSAT prep course will likely not improve your score quite that much (I didn't take one so I couldn't say) and 3) a 165 is most likely not going to get you anywhere near the "top ten".
As someone transferred from a Top 50 school to a Top 20 school, the change in educational experience was measurable.

Because we didn't have a "section", most of the transfers fell in together. Some of the transfers went to other Top Tier schools and some came from so-called TTT schools (which anyone who goes to one of these schools and refers to it as TTT, has a palpable inferiority complex).

When comparing experiences, we all agreed that while professors are not always great teachers so it was very hit or miss, but on the whole it was a step up. In terms of resources, our former schools paled in comparison. Finally, when it came to performance, while all of us (20 -25 transfers) were at least in the Top 10% in our former schools, only two of us graduated with honors.

Anecdotal, but there are some real differences.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Justice Stevens steps down