<p>I'm currently in my second year at community college and I will be transfering in the fall of next year. My plan is to transfer to a UC (UCLA and Cal are my reach schools) and then get into law school. My dream law school is USC Gould. </p>
<p>I don't know if it's too early to be thinking about this yet, but I would like to know what it takes to get to a school like USC Gould. Yes, I know GPA and LSAT scores are the main things, but what else? And a GPA in what range? Thanks!</p>
<p>An LSAT of ~166 and a gpa of ~3.6 will make you competitive at Gould. Just concentrate on your gpa for now, worry about your lsat later, and don’t worry about much of anything else.</p>
<p>The legal market is saturated. Outside of the T14, graduating from law school in the top 10% of the class is the only practical way to get a job.</p>
<p>^ Bad advice. Also, not relevant to OP’s question.</p>
<p>Where’s the bad advice?</p>
<p>What Homer28 said:
Students who attend schools outside the T14 and who do not finish in the top 10% of their class still have good chances of getting a job.</p>
<p>Well, that’s to be expected. The lawyer you represented OJ Simpson didn’t go to a T14 school.</p>
<p>Shoot for Boalt (a T-10 school) or UCLA , while public schools are both higher ranked than USC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A job? Sure. But I think the point homer was trying to make was that, unless your school has good LRAP or you get a substantial scholarship, you will probably not be able to graduate from a non-top law school with a job that gives you a decent chance of paying back your loans while maintaining a decent lifestyle. I could be reading into it too much. At any rate, I definitely agree with the sentiment. These days, I myself wouldn’t pay sticker for any school south of the top 10, maybe even top 6.</p>
<p>
How could that possibly be inferred from this: “The legal market is saturated. Outside of the T14, graduating from law school in the top 10% of the class is the only practical way to get a job” ? I think you “could be reading into it too much.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The legal market is, indeed, saturated. And the word “practical” implies the line of thought I wrote about in my first post. In becoming an expert on law school admissions, you apparently failed to become an expert on the legal job market. Consider this your first lesson.</p>
<p>
I never said it wasn’t.</p>
<p>
In what world does practical imply: “unless your school has good LRAP or you get a substantial scholarship, you will probably not be able to graduate from a non-top law school with a job that gives you a decent chance of paying back your loans while maintaining a decent lifestyle” ?</p>
<p>
Lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s called implicature. Learn it.</p>
<p>^ That wasn’t an implicature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Definitely was. If you’d like to lecture the forum on this topic, be my guest. I will be humored, though, since you are probably just graduated from high school. I, on the other hand, took graduate courses on the topic. Care to begin? I won’t participate. Rather, I will watch from the sidelines and giggle uncontrollably.</p>
<p>^ Fallacy of demanding negative proof. If you want to prove that the statement was indeed an implicature (why would you want to do such a thing the first place?) then you would have to prove it yourself. I’m in no position to disprove a statement which has no validity to begin with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re doling out these fallacies like you actually know what they are. All you’d have to do is show me the definition of implicature (though, preferably, not one from dictionary.com) and show that my interpretation doesn’t fit. That’s hardly demanding negative proof. That is demanding some finesse with linguistics, of which you have none, but that is merely to demonstrate that you are not even slightly qualified to discuss this topic and that you were wrong to call homer out.</p>
<p>
That is exactly what demanding negative proof is. You said “show my interpretation doesn’t fit” without giving an argument that it actually is an implicature. </p>
<p>
Lolwut? Try to stick with the conversation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Showing that something doesn’t fit with its definition isn’t hard. If I showed you someone happy and said, “he’s sad,” you would show me the definition of “sad” and then instruct me as to how that person doesn’t fit the definition. Asking to someone to show that something doesn’t fit a definition is hardly asking for “negative proof.” Demanding someone to prove that, for example, god doesn’t exists, is. </p>
<p>Like every other thread we’ve argued in, you’re now proceeding to digress to a topic about which you clearly have no knowledge, so I’ll stop this here.</p>
<p>
It’s not a definition. You’re making an argument in the form of: X is an implicature. Then you’re telling me to disprove you. I will not, as the burden of proof is on you, not me.</p>
<p>
You really like validating that I have no knowledge, huh? Seems a bit repetitive, don’t ya think? Did you ever think that maybe you should respond to my arguments, and not to my person? Are you an ageist, is that why you’re so angry that I’m seventeen? It seems a bit silly to include how smart you are and how stupid I am in every thread in an attempt to validate your awesomeness. In fact, it’s a bit immature.</p>