- This topic has 59 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
My son is planning on going to Beis medrash in a year. We have been talking about yeshivos with a college program. He is very interested in ner yisroel due to there college program. He is also very interested in attending law school at one point. We were wondering is it worth it to pay more to do college part time and receive a conventional degree or just settle for a btl b/c he will probably end up with a higher GPA. Which would be better to get in to a top 14 law school (not that he is bragging or something rather it is only worth it in todays market if you go to a top 14 law school)(Also how does gpa work with a btl)
It is ridiculous to plan for law school before taking the LSAT. It is like planning how to become a NFL player before ever picking up a football.
Go to a real college and get a real degree. Nothing can take the place of a real education.
Go to a real college and get a real degree. Nothing can take the place of a real education.
Except getting into a better law school with your higher GPA on your BTL.
Or like planning to be a Bais Yaakov teacher without going to seminary.
But perhaps a good education will help in this person’s future. A strong GPA may mean something in regards to getting in graduate schools, but a strong education gives a person even more advantages.
If he wants law school, a strong law school will give him way more than a weak law school and a strong liberal arts education.
SecularFrummy, perhaps in the past it did, but frankly I don’t see any difference between myself and my peers from highly ranked schools and even the Ivies academically. The only difference is the name, but if Hashem gave you the abilities, that’s easy enough to change with graduate school.
In most fields today, graduate schools care that your GPA and GRE/equivalent is above their baseline. Then it’s experiences, research, proof of productivity, diversity that will make it or break it. Not the name of your undergrad.
A strong undergraduate education will give a prospective graduate student a leg up when taking the LSAT and in law school. Although it is totally possible to succeed at a prestigious law school without it, a proper undergraduate education will make it a whole lot easier and will give skills that a BTL simply cannot.
No, it will not.
You are wrong.
I daresay I know more BTLs who have gone to top law schools than you do.
You can dare to say whatever you want(pending moderator approval), but all because you know of more individuals that forewent a proper education and later happened to have matriculated at a top law school doesn’t make it so.
No. But it gives me a basis for making my statements beyond conjecture.
I would conjecture.
As someone with some personal knowledge in this area, I’d say you are both right. A decent education would help grades once in school. A higher GPA would help one get into a better school. The best is a high GPA from a decent undergrad. If you are incapable of pulling that off, you are generally incapable of excelling in law school. Additionally, while schools care about pure gpa numbers for usnews rankings, they know good and well how much the numbers mean. I think a school with a 25/75 gpa of 3.6/3.8 would easily prefer a 3.65 legit degree over a 3.79 btl. Those are my unsupported thoughts though.
Frumnotyeshivish:
Cool, did you know some BTL’s in top schools (let’s say penn, columbia, or harvard)? Did they do well in school? Were they more or less spread along the curve gradewise, or did they bunch at either end?
Among the ones I know, they tilt towards the higher end of the curve gradewise (in aggregate).
PBA, that analogy isn’t good. . A better analogy is its like a highly successful college football player who wants to get info about the nfl, because odds are he is going to get there and he wants to be prepared for a potential life choice. Hacha nami, a guy seriously taking the LSAT, and especially one with a Gemara background can expect to do well and go to a decent law school.
As someone in a top law school, let me give my two cents.
The real benefit of getting a “regular” degree over a BTL exists, but is short lived. By getting a BA in pre-law type courses, I had the background information to not miss a beat when lectures began.
There were some in my classes who did not have a similar background to me and it took them a little bit more time to catch on.
That said, eventually everyone was on the same page and any differences between us became negligible.
That said, so long as you’re a hardworking individual, it doesn’t really matter what you get your degree in. My preference would always be for a non-BTL because it gave me background knowledge which proved very helpful in studying for the LSAT and the first few months of law school. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference and does not mean that you won’t succeed if a BTL is the path you choose.
If the goal is admission to an elite national law school and finding employment in “Big law”, a BTL is not the best way to go. In all situations, other than working for a frum organization, a BTL is quite unimpressive, meaning the other aspects of the resume have to be impressive, such as standardized tests, references, job history, specific courses, other accomplishment. A BA/BS from an elite university carries the most weight.
For some purposes, a BTL is fine. Non-elite law schools don’t mind them (but again, they’ll look at the rest of the resume). Government agencies that require “a bachelor’s degree” don’t mind them – but they may request a specific subject background.
akuperma: Are you saying that even after getting into an elite law school, BTL’s will have a harder time getting “biglaw”? Because my BTL friends in elite schools are pretty much all in biglaw, including in very elite firms.
If you look around at the top firm’s websites, you’ll find plenty of “Beth Medrash Govoha” degrees, and the like.
Your information really is outdated. Big firms who come to interview at top schools look foremost at grades, then somewhat at personality and presenation. They almost never even ask where you went to undergrad unless you are trying to go into a science heavy field like patent law. And they certainly won’t ever look at any standardized test score–including the LSAT; by the time you are in law school, only law school grades count.
pba: i do not have accurate aggregate grade numbers for the few people I know in top law schools. they’d have to be self-reported, and you know how that works… my personal knowledge involves my own experience with a few other friends both in applying to, and within law school.
It makes sense, all other things equal, that an lsat score has some accurate predictive tendencies for law school grades.
It makes sense, all other things equal, that an undergraduate gpa in a legit school has some accurate predictive tendencies for law school grades.
It makes no sense, that a BTL [bogus] gpa, has any accurate predictive tendencies for law school grades.
Further, the existence of a BTL, other than identifying one as part of a social group, should have no positive effect on law school grades.
If you disagree with any of those statements, my guess is that it’d be the last one, and not that strongly.
Lastly, you’d likely agree that writing strength and work ethic are the overwhelming majority of what law school grades comprise of. Both those attributes are necessarily present far more in a legit undergrad degree than in a BTL.
Therefore, 1. law schools SHOULD (all other things equal) prefer non-btl admits; and 2. other undergraduate degrees necessarily require one to develop the two crucial law school skills – work ethic and writing, thereby giving them a leg up in adjusting.
Lastly, you’d likely agree that writing strength and work ethic are the overwhelming majority of what law school grades comprise of. Both those attributes are necessarily present far more in a legit undergrad degree than in a BTL.
No, writing skills are not at all relevant to law school success except in one class. You can get an A+ without a single proper sentence on a law school exam.
Why would you say that?
frumnotyeshivish: So a major in “film history” or a student who has mastered the history of medieval Ruritania sexual preferences is better qualified than a BTL for Law school? That’s why law schools look at transcripts, and they like to some courses relevant to becoming a lawyer (e.g. know enough American history so you understand how it is that the New York Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals sitting in New York City, are entirely different courts). Regular college degrees can be total junk – which is probably why a BTL is often accepted
popa_bar_abba: In an ideal world, academic merit would be the primary thing that gets one a job. But unless you hold that graduates of elite prep schools have excessive academic merit, its hard to explain their overrepresentation other than that social connections and family background still count. And while a young lawyer from a very “chasuv” rabbinical family, a good yeshiva, a beard and pe’os, and amazing grades and other legal activities might still get hired – the reality remains that “what you are” is still a big factor.
Yes connections can help you get a job. But I don’t think you are correct that going to columbia college will be much help over BMG if you have similar grades, connections, and presentation.
I think you are too pessimistic regarding getting biglaw from elite schools. That isn’t to say it is easy, but if you can get good grades from an elite school you have quite a good likelihood.
Also, yeshiva guys do have good connections. Often much better than their classmates
And frumnotyesh:
You think people with regular undeegrads have a better work ethic than BTL’s??? Why???
I’ll let you qualify that or amend it before I blast you.
My family who went to Law school always said the best guys their were the Yeshiva boys (and it was a top 10 law school). They wanted to posit the svara that the ability to formulate logical progressions (fluid intelligence) was much more progressed in the Yeshiva students than in those who had gone to conventional undergrad programs and had spent virtually all their time developing crystallized intelligence by memorizing facts. The logic- building of a blatt Gemara is worth a tremendous amount when it comes to studying the more logical derech halimud which is set forth in Law school.
PBA – I said that a LEGIT udergrad NECESSARILY has built work ethic and writing skills. BTLs may have the above skills and may not. A 3.8 gpa from princeton definitely does. Therefore a 3.8 gpa from princeton proves far more than a btl. As you go lower in terms of undergrad quality you’ll prove less and less.
Your statement “You can get an A+ without a single proper sentence on a law school exam” may be true to your experiences, but mine are 1) there’s no A+ in law school, and 2) writing ability is the primary factor in a grade. It’s not merely what you say, but how you say it. I’ve never seen an A exam answer with clearly improper sentences (with the exception of one professor I had who had strict severe word limits).
YacMo – Work ethic is what goes into preparing the “crystallized intelligence” which informs the “fluid intelligence.” Only crystallized intelligence will get you somewhere. Only fluid intelligence won’t. Both are required to excel. In my personal experience. The lsat measures “fluid intelligence” quite well. In a GPA measurement law schools are or should be looking for evidence of crystallized intelligence.
Even in the best law schools, they give homework and tests and are competitive about grades. The best yeshivos have bochurim sitting and learning for hours- the motivation comes not from grades or tests, but from within.
I know many BTL grads who have issues in Grad School with writing skills, research skills, ect. They have needed to take some remedial classes.
Your statement “You can get an A+ without a single proper sentence on a law school exam” may be true to your experiences, but mine are 1) there’s no A+ in law school, and 2) writing ability is the primary factor in a grade. It’s not merely what you say, but how you say it. I’ve never seen an A exam answer with clearly improper sentences (with the exception of one professor I had who had strict severe word limits).
1. Law schools have A+. Perhaps not every one, but most do.
2. Writing ability is the least factor in a grade. I have been shown A+ exams from top schools with misspelled words, broken sentences, and horrific grammar.
Even in the best law schools, they give homework and tests and are competitive about grades. The best yeshivos have bochurim sitting and learning for hours- the motivation comes not from grades or tests, but from within.
1. Law school does not have homework.
2. Law school does not have tests–just one final at the end of each semester for each class.
You don’t seem to know much about law school.
I know many BTL grads who have issues in Grad School with writing skills, research skills, ect. They have needed to take some remedial classes.
Let’s talk about law school specifically, not about generic grad school. Nobody coming to law school knows how to do legal research (except the former paralegals perhaps).
PBA – the grading method is determined by the professor. Most professors I’ve had were explicit in their requirement of proper writing format. Even those who weren’t explicit generally gave the best grades to the best writers.
Granted, I’m providing personal experiences.
What evidence do you have that “most” law schools have an A+? Or that writing ability is generally the “least” factor? At best, we had different experiences. Are you the chronicler of all law professor/school grading procedures?
No. But I’ve apparantly discussed it with more people than you have. Most notably, I spent some time trolling one of the popular law school internet forums.
You ask what evidence I have that other schools give an A+? I don’t need evidence–you can simply go on their website and look. Google grading policy and the name of any school and you should be able to pull up their curve. (Also, I’m sorry you never got an A+, but they are really really hard to get.)
They’re really hard to get? I had no idea. Where I went, we didn’t discuss grades with friends and I always assumed that everyone got them.
VM: Shhh, not so loud, I’m trying to make him feel better about himself.
There is no question in my mind that being really proficient in Talmud, predisposes someone to having the type of thinking that does well in law school, too. That said, get the secular education AND the Torah education, and let one enhance the other.
oomis – either being really proficient in talmud predisposes one to the thinking in law school or there is a correlation between those that are really proficient at talmud and at law school. I’d probably go with both being true, with the latter point being far more important. Either way, a BTL is not adequate proof of having high proficiency in talmud.
Popa – I googled a few top schools. The NYC schools have A+ (I found an interesting NYT article in the results on the topic that i’m pretty sure my law and economics professor shared the link to as well. He wasn’t a fan of grade inflation…) Other schools, not as much. Mine: definitely not.
BTL or different degree.
It depends how much you value learning in yeshiva.
Since Wisey has resurrected this year old post, let me offer some comments (I am a Lawyer, I practice in CT, and I teach at Law School (as an adjunct in Juvenile and Family Law).
Not all Law Schools are the same, and if you are not looking to join a major downtown firm and work 2000 plus hours the first few years, it doesn’t make much difference where you go tgo Law School. Only that you pass the Bar Exam and probably use connections to get interviews and a starter job.
There has been much false information posted above. Some professors teaching certain courses do give homework in Law School. A Law student should figure to spend 3 hours in outside study or work for every class hour. Thus a fifteen credit semester means 15 hours per week in class and 45 hours additional preparation.
It is also false that there are NO tests except for semester finals. I attended an Ivy League Law School and Property, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law and Ethics all had weekly tests as well as finals. Except for senior level courses all my law classes had midterm exams.
The classes I teach have midterm, final and 3 major research projects each semester.
Back to the BTL or Conventional degree question. If you are taking the Bar Exam in NY or Maryland, the BTL is not so unusual.
REMEMBER: When making application to take the Bar Exam the candidate must supply his/her College Transcripts as well as Law School Transcript. Out of town a BTL may not be recognized as a legitimate degree. Last year the Bar Committee contacted me to find out what it was. In the specific applicant’s case it really wasn’t equivalent to a 4 year BS or BA and he was not permitted to take the Bar Exam…and lost his $750 application fee.
Before taking any of these comments seriously, make some calls to the Law Schools you’d like to attend and the Bar Examining Committee in the State in which you’d like to practice. Then make your decision.
Community Colleges often have more resources in terms of assisting people in catching up academically. Additionally they are much more cost effective and its easier to be enrolled in such an institution part time than other places. Nowadays they often have general education courses online which can help as well.
My personal opinion is that regardless of where you graduate from, its important to make sure you can get good recommendations from at least some of your professors/ school related employees. That way, you show graduate schools that you have a work ethic/ potential.
There is an enormous amount of misinformation in this thread. I will do my best to set things straight, but let me begin by introducing myself: I am a BTL-holding T14 graduate who is currently employed as an associate at a V10 firm. I will go through each post in this thread and insert my comment(s) as I feel necessary.
not that he is bragging or something rather it is only worth it in todays market if you go to a top 14 law school
If you are either: 1) interested in biglaw or 2) taking out significant loans to pay for law school (think $50k+, which requires biglaw to pay off in a timely fashion), this is correct. If you need support for this statement, google Law School Transparency and poke around.
It is ridiculous to plan for law school before taking the LSAT. It is like planning how to become a NFL player before ever picking up a football.
Although you may be more informed than many others in this thread–probably the case if you’re a TLS regular–your posts are often unnecessarily hyperbolic to the point of being misleading. Assuming one takes the relatively standard route of sitting for the LSAT ~3 years after high school, he will have already accumulated the majority of his college credits (and grades) by that point. Due to US News pandering, GPA counts for ~50% of your overall admissions cycle (the other ~50% is your LSAT score). Thus, there is reason to “plan for law school” in the form of taking GPA-maximizing courses even before taking the LSAT. I suppose the ideal situation would be to take the LSAT prior to even beginning college. However, because LSAT scores only last for five years, and might be a waste if you change your mind about law school during the intervening years, this isn’t generally the practice.
Go to a real college and get a real degree. Nothing can take the place of a real education.
I don’t know what this means.
But perhaps a good education will help in this person’s future. A strong GPA may mean something in regards to getting in graduate schools, but a strong education gives a person even more advantages.
Maybe this is what the previous person was trying to say, I don’t know, but this actually has some validity. The downside of going all-in on the BTL is that you may change your mind about law school (or do poorly on the LSAT) three years into the endeavor. At that point, you’re stuck, because outside of law school (i.e., for getting any other professional position) a BTL is pretty much worthless. If this is what is meant by “more advantages,” then there is something to this post.
If he wants law school, a strong law school will give him way more than a weak law school and a strong liberal arts education.
If you meant “If he wants biglaw,” (or pretty much any legal job), then you are correct. But again, this strategy (going BTL to maximize GPA and get into a T6) is risky for the reasons mentioned immediately above.
A strong undergraduate education will give a prospective graduate student a leg up when taking the LSAT and in law school. Although it is totally possible to succeed at a prestigious law school without it, a proper undergraduate education will make it a whole lot easier and will give skills that a BTL simply cannot.
No, it will not.
You are wrong
I daresay I know more BTLs who have gone to top law schools than you do.
…And this is where the conversation devolves into inanity. The problem is that each of you are speaking from either 1) first-hand experience or 2) anecdotal information. For obvious reasons, neither can be trusted to inform a sound opinion, and thus none of your posts are anything beyond utter speculation. PBA, out of curiosity, do the people you know tell you their actual grades? Or are you basing this off employment outcomes/honors/law review? Any of the three can be misleading for reasons I won’t go into here. Suffice to say that, for lack of any credible evidence, I don’t think there is any reason to think that BTL-holders would fare any better or worse than your average law school matriculant. Unless you can summon data to the contrary, I think presenting anecdotal evidence as anything even resembling fact is disingenuous and a disservice to the OP.
My preference would always be for a non-BTL because it gave me background knowledge which proved very helpful in studying for the LSAT and the first few months of law school.
I have no idea what you would study to help you with the LSAT (formal logic?) or the substantive material taught in law school, but whatever it is certainly isn’t a necessary condition to doing well in either.
If the goal is admission to an elite national law school and finding employment in “Big law”, a BTL is not the best way to go.
Au contraire (or, if you prefer, aderaba). See above. Your statement does hold true, however, for pretty much any other professional employment.
Big firms who come to interview at top schools look foremost at grades, then somewhat at personality and presenation. They almost never even ask where you went to undergrad unless you are trying to go into a science heavy field like patent law.
This is true, though you will almost certainly get questions about your yeshiva/BTL during on-campus interviews.
No, writing skills are not at all relevant to law school success except in one class. You can get an A+ without a single proper sentence on a law school exam.
Again, your penchant for hyperbole hurts you. The first sentence here (your conclusion) does not necessarily follow from the second (your premise), and is in fact wrong. Although you are correct that proper grammar is not necessary to get good grades, forming coherent arguments and forming conclusions is. So maybe the two of you are talking past each other by defining “writing” differently, but I can assure you that writing skills (of the latter variety) do matter. Also, as an aside, it’s entirely possible that your buddies got “A+s” despite their poor grammar, not that the poor grammar was “irrelevant.”
Also, yeshiva guys do have good connections. Often much better than their classmates.
Again, although the rest of the information in this post is largely correct, you need to rein yourself in to things that you can back up. Otherwise you jeopardize your entire credibility.
1. Law schools have A+. Perhaps not every one, but most do.
2. Writing ability is the least factor in a grade. I have been shown A+ exams from top schools with misspelled words, broken sentences, and horrific grammar.
Some schools have A+s. Many of the T14 have switched to either HP/P/F or have non-letter grades. Others use A+ as a replacement for CALI awards (best exam) but still count it as a 4.0. Bottom line: who really cares. Your second point suffers from the same issue mentioned earlier.
1. Law school does not have homework.
2. Law school does not have tests–just one final at the end of each semester for each class.
These are generally true, at least for non-seminar courses.
There is no question in my mind that being really proficient in Talmud, predisposes someone to having the type of thinking that does well in law school, too.
You should probably begin questioning more.
Not all Law Schools are the same, and if you are not looking to join a major downtown firm and work 2000 plus hours the first few years, it doesn’t make much difference where you go tgo Law School.
False. Getting a government and/or public interest job is far easier from a T14 for a number of reasons least of which is the generous loan repayment plans that they offer. I suppose your chances of success in hanging a shingle (near-zero) or joining your shver’s firm (100%) are similar no matter where you graduate from, but that’s about it.
There has been much false information posted above. Some professors teaching certain courses do give homework in Law School. A Law student should figure to spend 3 hours in outside study or work for every class hour. Thus a fifteen credit semester means 15 hours per week in class and 45 hours additional preparation.
I suppose that would technically be “homework” in that it’s work done at home, but it isn’t graded and thus I don’t think most would consider it homework in the meaningful sense.
It is also false that there are NO tests except for semester finals. I attended an Ivy League Law School and Property, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law and Ethics all had weekly tests as well as finals. Except for senior level courses all my law classes had midterm exams.
This is not the norm anymore. I hope you enjoyed Cornell in the 80s.
The classes I teach have midterm, final and 3 major research projects each semester.
I pity your students.
REMEMBER: When making application to take the Bar Exam the candidate must supply his/her College Transcripts as well as Law School Transcript. Out of town a BTL may not be recognized as a legitimate degree. Last year the Bar Committee contacted me to find out what it was. In the specific applicant’s case it really wasn’t equivalent to a 4 year BS or BA and he was not permitted to take the Bar Exam…and lost his $750 application fee.
I haven’t heard of this happening before, but given some of the stories I’ve heard (i.e., people going to an American yeshiva for a year or two after coming back from an Israeli yeshiva that certainly does not give any form of credits and walking out with a BTL) it makes sense. Interesting.
Okay, that’s all for now. I’m happy to discuss any of this stuff further. I guess my biggest peeve with all of the (many) BTL–>law school discussions on here is the prevalence of anecdote-based conclusions. Let’s all just admit that we don’t have any remotely convincing evidence relating to the relative success of a BTL getting into/doing well in law school and reduce the discussion to what we do know. The decision to eschew college in favor of a BTL–almost certainly a life-changing one–should be given at least that much respect.
Yeah, we want solid statistical analysis, not anecdotal evidence.
#1–I didn’t go to Cornell, I went to Pennsylvania, and it wasn’t the 80s
My niece is currently a Professor of Law at Harvard. She teaches Criminal Law. Her first year students have midterms.
My BIL teaches Property and Real Estate Law at another Massachusetts Law School. Property Law has weekly quizzes and a midterm. Real Estate Law has a midterm.
Legal Writing and Motions courses often have homework assignments that must be handed in. Courses in Constitutional Law and Torts generally do not.
I wouldn’t pity my students for the workload. I also provide them free tutoring for the Bar Exam. Last year, my students taking the CT and Mass Bar Exams had a 94% pass Rate on the first try, NY was 93%.
Your observation about getting a Government job being easier from a T14 school may be true in states such as NY, BUT in other states that have few Law Schools (Connecticut has only 3, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine each have one) a candidate will have a better chance getting a state or local government job if they graduated from a local Law School.
Many law schools focus on teaching the NBE tested major subjects and local state law. They may teach none of the law that is particular to another state.
Each year I give a CT Bar Review Class for Massachusetts Law School Grads who plan to take the CT Bar Exam. Almost no one takes Administrative Law during law school in Massachusetts, but CT tests it. There is an Admin Law Essay about 3 out of time times the Bar Exam is given. Similarly, Columbia Law will not teach CT Constitutional Law which is also tested.
I point all this out to show that there are no one-size fits all answers. Each state’s Bar Exam requirements are different. For example, many students fret about the MPRE exam that many states require (with varying passing scores). In Connecticut, a law grad need not take the MPRE if he/she passed a law school Ethics course with a minimum of a ‘B’ within 4 years of taking the Bar Exam, If not the MPRE with a minimum grade of 80 is required.
Lastly, For those who wish to initially practice in CT, MA, or VT and do not want to take the LSAT and spend $150K on their Law Education, There is a Non-ABA approved Law School-Massachusetts School of Law, in Andover, MA which does not require the LSAT, costs about half and whose graduates can take the listed Bar Exams. After practicing a certain number of years they are also eligible to take many other state’s exams including NY.
I was just kidding about the Cornell in the 80s thing. Good to hear you went to Penn–I hear its reputation took a hit after the whole JoePa scandal though. As for the midterms thing, perhaps I was guilty of precisely the anecdote fallacy that I bemoaned above. All I’ll say is that no doctrinal course in my school, upper- or lower-level, had a midterm or graded homework, and I haven’t heard of any from my friends from peer schools. I don’t think it matters for the purposes of the BTL-or-not discussion.
As for attending unaccredited/”regional” schools, that’s a discussion for another day. I will say that under very limited circumstances I would recommend a “regional” school; I don’t think I would ever recommend an unaccredited school no matter the price.
Also, you would need to be brain dead to be incapable of passing the MPRE (even in states that require an 86). I truly hope nobody actually “frets” about it.
There’s an enormous amount of long posting in the past few hours, of the type that I’m sure no biglaw lawyer would think of putting in an email.
It’s very easy to make up credentials on a anonymous website. Brony went to law school and works at a law firm, and CTlawyer’s whole family teaches at Harvard, and I’m a partner at Wachtell.
Looks like the jig is up. I’m really a housewife in Albany. Please ignore the substantive validity of any/all of my points.
You’re the one who associated your pedigree with your opinion.
Brony- as someone obsessed with credibility you should know that you lost me with the Cornell thing and confusing Penn with Penn State.
There is an enormous amount of misinformation in this thread: I am a BTL-holding T14 graduate who is currently employed as an associate at a V10 firm. not that he is bragging or something
I took out all of the extra parts.
@Popa-bar=abba
Only one member of my family teaches at at Harvard, my neice (by marriage) whose father and grandfather were Appellate Court Judges. It is not unusual that she would have married into a family of lawyers and that her FIL, MY BIL teaches at another Massachusetts Law School.
People often go into the family trade, be it shmattes, diamonds, Rabbinics, medicine or law. They’ve grown up listening t the dining table stories, seeing and hearing the experiences of the parents and helping out in the office from the time they can run a copy machine or file alphabetically.
Furthermore, my post is to show that NY is NOT the exclusive home to religious Jews in America. My family moved on from NY more than 100 years ago. My BIL’s family arrived in New England in the early 1880s after the first pogroms in Russia.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.