Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Rutgers-Newark: In State + Min. COL, 12K Scholarship, 3.0 Stipulation
96
59%
Cardozo: May Entry + NY COL, Sticker (46K)
22
14%
Seton Hall: Min. COL, 25K Scholarship , Top 50% Stipulation
14
9%
Brooklyn Law: NY COL, 25K Scholarship, Top 40% Stipulation
30
19%
 
Total votes: 162

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:48 pm

Come on... Vote Real Quick

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:39 am

Does anyone else question the posters on TLS who seem to have negative things to say about mid-range ranking (and rising) private schools, yet positive things to say above less threatening, lower ranked schools like Rutgers?

I find it difficult to believe that such posters, who believe in rankings so much, suddenly argue against them when it comes to schools like Cardozo or Seton Hall or Brooklyn vs. Rutgers.

Sometimes I wonder if that it is because of the threat level of these schools in US news rankings (particularly Cardozo) that facilitate a motivated bias when cruising around TLS giving advice. Gunner--types don't want law students "of a lesser caliber" to ride a wave of a rising school because it means those students scored worse or had lower GPA's, etc.

Other times I think that assessment could be wrong, but I don't think my suspicion is unwarranted. Does anyone concur?

On the other hand, it could be that they just start using their JUDGMENT when it is not about a T25 school + Fordham. So I ask: Is it the kids that go to top schools that make employment numbers so impressive or is it the preparation that the school provides? Does the fact that bright students go there really prop up prospects for those who would be at another school that isn't T14 or 25 with money, or in-state?

I would obviously never rely on a poll or USNWR because any educated person, especially one seeking to go to law school - I would hope- has better judgment than that. I am just curious to know how people measure their advice. Is it this name brand, ranking reputation phenomenon OR is it an education, program, value phenomenon?
Last edited by bernie shmegma on Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
SteelReserve
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:46 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby SteelReserve » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:45 am

First off, your post is fairly incomprehensible. But if I get the gist, you are asking why many people think Bklyn type schools are a disaster even though they are ranked in the top 100 or so?

That misses the mark--it's not about the ranking--it's about the post-grad employment prospects. Simply put, schools like Bklyn do not give the majority of their grads entry-level jobs that justify the outrageous tuition. As a result, many grads will live a meager paycheck to paycheck existence and sign away half their income to student loan payments.

Since the career prospects out of the schools you listed on the poll are basically the same, there is no rational economic reason to go to any school but Rutgers, where you will be paying so very little. Even if you bomb 1L, you will at worst be paying in-state tuition, whereas if you bombed at Dozo, you would be grinding 45k per year.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:51 am

Agreed. But, do you think that is the common rationale behind most TLS advice on this question? I realize how badly written that post was. I tried changing it a few times but gave up because I just wanted to post it.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby Flanker1067 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:54 am

Yes. No one (very few) people on TLS will recommend going to a not "top" school at high tuition when you have other options that are only marginally worse at a much smaller price.

User avatar
oberlin08
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:37 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby oberlin08 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:56 am

I think you gotta go with RU-N here, I assume youre from NJ so maybe you could live at home and such?

Not sure what type of law you want to get into, but i don't believe the job prospects between RU-N and the others are that significant

I say go to RU-N, keep your costs low do well, and then you'll be on your way

User avatar
SteelReserve
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:46 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby SteelReserve » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:59 am

Now, I almost exclusively peruse the legal employment and law student forums, except when something interesting (like this thread) pops up on the home page, so I cannot speak for what 0Ls say in the other forums--I cannot speak for their motivations.

Since you had the class to admit your post was poorly written and you did not devolve into a defensive 0L know-it-all douche, I will again say that you should absolutely positively go to Rutgers. I am giving you life advice here my friend. I know Newark is not all that great, but you can live in NY later in life if you really want to and have the means to do so.

Also, in terms of USnews rankings, Seton Hall/Bklyndozo/etc will not be rising. Instead, they will drop or maintain their current rankings. The reason is that the rankings now factor part-time student LSAT scores. Thus, unless these schools reduce or drop their part-time programs, their rankings will not improve.

If you have any other questions I am glad to help. Btw I am a 2L.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:08 am

SteelReserve wrote:Now, I almost exclusively peruse the legal employment and law student forums, except when something interesting (like this thread) pops up on the home page, so I cannot speak for what 0Ls say in the other forums--I cannot speak for their motivations.

Since you had the class to admit your post was poorly written and you did not devolve into a defensive 0L know-it-all douche, I will again say that you should absolutely positively go to Rutgers. I am giving you life advice here my friend. I know Newark is not all that great, but you can live in NY later in life if you really want to and have the means to do so.

Also, in terms of USnews rankings, Seton Hall/Bklyndozo/etc will not be rising. Instead, they will drop or maintain their current rankings. The reason is that the rankings now factor part-time student LSAT scores. Thus, unless these schools reduce or drop their part-time programs, their rankings will not improve.

If you have any other questions I am glad to help. Btw I am a 2L.


I appreciate the input. Hopefully this thread and your response in particular, will provide some insight to those who have similar questions as me during the admissions process.

I happen to agree with you and err strongly towards Rutgers. However, the opposite argument is something I feel is necessary to consider before making this important decision.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:13 am

Flanker1067 wrote:Yes. No one (very few) people on TLS will recommend going to a not "top" school at high tuition when you have other options that are only marginally worse at a much smaller price.


I just hope employers recognize that the difference between rank # 40 and rank #100 is much smaller (arguably inconsequential altogether) than the difference between rank #1 and rank #15.

User avatar
BaiAilian2013
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby BaiAilian2013 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:18 am

bernie shmegma wrote:Sometimes I wonder if that it is because of the threat level of these schools in US news rankings (particularly Cardozo) that facilitate a motivated bias when cruising around TLS giving advice. Gunner--types don't want law students "of a lesser caliber" to ride a wave of a rising school because it means those students scored worse or had lower GPA's, etc.

Other times I think that assessment could be wrong, but I don't think my suspicion is unwarranted. Does anyone concur?

No. This makes you sound completely insane. People might give some biased advice from time to time, but I can guarantee you this is not the reason.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:44 am

oberlin08 wrote:I think you gotta go with RU-N here, I assume youre from NJ so maybe you could live at home and such?

Not sure what type of law you want to get into, but i don't believe the job prospects between RU-N and the others are that significant

I say go to RU-N, keep your costs low do well, and then you'll be on your way


Yeah, that's what I am thinking despite the fact that where I am from everyone seems to be a Seton Hall law alumnus. Granted, I don't ignore the fact that my neighborhood has a bizarre outlook on higher education. Although, it is for that same reason that the benefits of some institutions become a self-fulfilling prophecy. At the same time, I barely know any people who chose Rutgers and I think it is because of that reason. Thus, the pros of the RU are less known to me from first-hand advice. That does not mean I am going to pre-judge a state school that everyone else in the U.S. and NJ highly respects. In fact, it makes me question everyone else in my area's judgment. I doubt they are where they are in life because they went to Seton Hall Law instead of Rutgers. It is much more likely they are where they would have been either way, just with more debt or a moral obligation to do something to make money that they may not want to be doing.
Last edited by bernie shmegma on Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:53 am

BaiAilian2013 wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:Sometimes I wonder if that it is because of the threat level of these schools in US news rankings (particularly Cardozo) that facilitate a motivated bias when cruising around TLS giving advice. Gunner--types don't want law students "of a lesser caliber" to ride a wave of a rising school because it means those students scored worse or had lower GPA's, etc.

Other times I think that assessment could be wrong, but I don't think my suspicion is unwarranted. Does anyone concur?

No. This makes you sound completely insane. People might give some biased advice from time to time, but I can guarantee you this is not the reason.


It makes me sound insane to express my thoughts on how this is one way one could perceive the situation? I am not making any declarative accusations here... Just one thought

Am I insane for wondering why you are so defensive on this front? Did I hit a soft spot on your conscience? Just another thought. Again, I could be wrong, but it is a consideration... O, I forgot about your "guarantee," my mistake.

But, seriously I do think you are right and tend to believe that what you say is true, except for the insanity part.
Last edited by bernie shmegma on Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

get it to x
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:31 am

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby get it to x » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:58 am

I think you've got to go with Rutgers here as well. They place well in NYC at big law firms across the board if you can get into the top 15-20% of your class or higher. And if you can't get there, they seem to place well in mid-sized firms as well. It also gives you access to two major markets right out of graduation something which Brooklyn, Cardozo, and SJU cannot do as easily in my opinion. The price of tuition negates one of Brooklyn's true strengths which is access to their alumni network. The same can be said for SJU. Cardozo is young and trying to pull itself up in the rankings by gradually increasing their medians year after year. I'm still not sold that their placement is any better than Brooklyn or SJU. I know little about Seton Hall other than that the tuition is very pricey and it seems to take a back seat to both Rutgers in terms of lay prestige.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Brooklyn, Cardozo, or SJU. They teach the same sequence of first year courses the same way that everybody else does. High tuition costs coupled with cost of living is what turns some students off and sends posters on this board packing. The risk just doesn't seem worth the rewards if you're paying near sticker or have scholarships with a significant amount of stipulations that you might not be able to meet.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:42 pm

Does anyone even think there are many more opportunities or a significantly more enriching experience at any of the schools listed above (even-up on costs).

get it to x
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:31 am

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby get it to x » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:10 pm

I haven't visited any of them, but from what I've read online they seem to be filled with standard student bodies who would tend to commute to school rather than live in the immediate vicinity. Cardozo, though, might be an exception to this generalization. This could lead to a less-cohesive student body environment than what you might be looking for, but again I'm not certain. I don't think any of them give off the vibe of being a "feely-touchy" place, but I could be dead wrong on this one. I don't think any of them offers anything different on the surface. If you have your heart set on clerking for a judge in Brooklyn or other small specialty courses/clinics that may begin to differentiate them from one another. For big picture stuff, I think they're interchangeable.

underdog
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby underdog » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:35 pm

I would go Cardozo. but that's just me.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:41 pm

get it to x wrote:I haven't visited any of them, but from what I've read online they seem to be filled with standard student bodies who would tend to commute to school rather than live in the immediate vicinity. Cardozo, though, might be an exception to this generalization. This could lead to a less-cohesive student body environment than what you might be looking for, but again I'm not certain. I don't think any of them give off the vibe of being a "feely-touchy" place, but I could be dead wrong on this one. I don't think any of them offers anything different on the surface. If you have your heart set on clerking for a judge in Brooklyn or other small specialty courses/clinics that may begin to differentiate them from one another. For big picture stuff, I think they're interchangeable.


I mean any school that isn't a centralized campus will have this issue if I understand what you are saying correctly.

champ33
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby champ33 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:46 pm

bernie shmegma wrote:
get it to x wrote:I haven't visited any of them, but from what I've read online they seem to be filled with standard student bodies who would tend to commute to school rather than live in the immediate vicinity. Cardozo, though, might be an exception to this generalization. This could lead to a less-cohesive student body environment than what you might be looking for, but again I'm not certain. I don't think any of them give off the vibe of being a "feely-touchy" place, but I could be dead wrong on this one. I don't think any of them offers anything different on the surface. If you have your heart set on clerking for a judge in Brooklyn or other small specialty courses/clinics that may begin to differentiate them from one another. For big picture stuff, I think they're interchangeable.


I mean any school that isn't a centralized campus will have this issue if I understand what you are saying correctly.


I've sent a deposit to Rutgers and my only real concern is the sort of environment you're talking about.. i got the sense maybe that students aren't as cohesive due to many commuting or having families, I know that this is at any school but Rutgers has a PT program and the location just seems conducive to this. feel free to correct me.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:10 pm

champ33 wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:
get it to x wrote:I haven't visited any of them, but from what I've read online they seem to be filled with standard student bodies who would tend to commute to school rather than live in the immediate vicinity. Cardozo, though, might be an exception to this generalization. This could lead to a less-cohesive student body environment than what you might be looking for, but again I'm not certain. I don't think any of them give off the vibe of being a "feely-touchy" place, but I could be dead wrong on this one. I don't think any of them offers anything different on the surface. If you have your heart set on clerking for a judge in Brooklyn or other small specialty courses/clinics that may begin to differentiate them from one another. For big picture stuff, I think they're interchangeable.


I mean any school that isn't a centralized campus will have this issue if I understand what you are saying correctly.


I've sent a deposit to Rutgers and my only real concern is the sort of environment you're talking about.. i got the sense maybe that students aren't as cohesive due to many commuting or having families, I know that this is at any school but Rutgers has a PT program and the location just seems conducive to this. feel free to correct me.


Yeah, all the schools listed above have PT programs, except Cardozo isn't really PT how we think of it. But I certainly think that Rutgers is going to be less cohesive than, for instance living in a dorm or popular apartment building in Ann Arbor or Bloomington. This is to be expected for any non-college town or even college-based environment in a suburbian-type city. Basically I feel all NY, NJ schools are going to be "less cohesive" in this sense. Maybe the NJ schools like SH and RU will be slightly less cohesive because so many students will be dispersed between Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bergen suburbs, Essex suburbs, and home Jersey towns. This is not to say that the student body won't spend A LOT of time on campus in newark, use the gym, have drinks at the bars etc. I think that makes RU attractive compared to many NY/NJ schools. I do agree that when it comes to leisure and just studying at night and taking breaks out in an apartment or dorm lobby that element will be missing, but that some pretty close relationships will obviously build once people figure out their routines and who is on the same page as far as dedicating time to this type of "cohesion" as opposed to an isolated experience, which would ultimately be more of the choice of an individual and less the circumstance of the type of school for Full Time students at least. Traditional PT program students will be somewhat isolated no matter where one is.

Rutgers1L_10
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby Rutgers1L_10 » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:30 am

bernie shmegma wrote:
Yeah, all the schools listed above have PT programs, except Cardozo isn't really PT how we think of it. But I certainly think that Rutgers is going to be less cohesive than, for instance living in a dorm or popular apartment building in Ann Arbor or Bloomington. This is to be expected for any non-college town or even college-based environment in a suburbian-type city. Basically I feel all NY, NJ schools are going to be "less cohesive" in this sense. Maybe the NJ schools like SH and RU will be slightly less cohesive because so many students will be dispersed between Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bergen suburbs, Essex suburbs, and home Jersey towns. This is not to say that the student body won't spend A LOT of time on campus in newark, use the gym, have drinks at the bars etc. I think that makes RU attractive compared to many NY/NJ schools. I do agree that when it comes to leisure and just studying at night and taking breaks out in an apartment or dorm lobby that element will be missing, but that some pretty close relationships will obviously build once people figure out their routines and who is on the same page as far as dedicating time to this type of "cohesion" as opposed to an isolated experience, which would ultimately be more of the choice of an individual and less the circumstance of the type of school for Full Time students at least. Traditional PT program students will be somewhat isolated no matter where one is.


If this is your concern then you have nothing to worry about. Although I don't live on campus I can say with certainty that no matter if you live on campus or off campus you will have plenty of interaction with your classmates. It has less to do where people live and more to do with the extremely small class size and the scheduling. You're going to see you classmates for 8 hours a day, and on Fridays, and Saturdays, and in the Library in the middle of the night--trust me you'll see them more than you want. A lot of people that live in the dorms get together and study in the buildings, and some just hang out in the law school library or in classrooms after hours. There's lots of opportunity to build cohesive groups and hang out with your friends. The first semester has lots of opportunities for 1Ls to meet. Every week there's a different student organization hosting something. They serve free food and alcohol so there's always lots of students hanging out after class to attend those events. PT students are more isolated. By the time they get to school everyone from the day program is done with class and is off studying. Unlike a lot of schools where the PT students mostly consist of students the admissions office didn't want to admit because of their LSAT/GPA, Rutgers' PT is not that way. The PT students actually NEED to be PT because they have full-time jobs and commitments that would prevent them form enrolling full-time.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:07 am

Rutgers1L_10 wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:
Yeah, all the schools listed above have PT programs, except Cardozo isn't really PT how we think of it. But I certainly think that Rutgers is going to be less cohesive than, for instance living in a dorm or popular apartment building in Ann Arbor or Bloomington. This is to be expected for any non-college town or even college-based environment in a suburbian-type city. Basically I feel all NY, NJ schools are going to be "less cohesive" in this sense. Maybe the NJ schools like SH and RU will be slightly less cohesive because so many students will be dispersed between Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bergen suburbs, Essex suburbs, and home Jersey towns. This is not to say that the student body won't spend A LOT of time on campus in newark, use the gym, have drinks at the bars etc. I think that makes RU attractive compared to many NY/NJ schools. I do agree that when it comes to leisure and just studying at night and taking breaks out in an apartment or dorm lobby that element will be missing, but that some pretty close relationships will obviously build once people figure out their routines and who is on the same page as far as dedicating time to this type of "cohesion" as opposed to an isolated experience, which would ultimately be more of the choice of an individual and less the circumstance of the type of school for Full Time students at least. Traditional PT program students will be somewhat isolated no matter where one is.


If this is your concern then you have nothing to worry about. Although I don't live on campus I can say with certainty that no matter if you live on campus or off campus you will have plenty of interaction with your classmates. It has less to do where people live and more to do with the extremely small class size and the scheduling. You're going to see you classmates for 8 hours a day, and on Fridays, and Saturdays, and in the Library in the middle of the night--trust me you'll see them more than you want. A lot of people that live in the dorms get together and study in the buildings, and some just hang out in the law school library or in classrooms after hours. There's lots of opportunity to build cohesive groups and hang out with your friends. The first semester has lots of opportunities for 1Ls to meet. Every week there's a different student organization hosting something. They serve free food and alcohol so there's always lots of students hanging out after class to attend those events. PT students are more isolated. By the time they get to school everyone from the day program is done with class and is off studying. Unlike a lot of schools where the PT students mostly consist of students the admissions office didn't want to admit because of their LSAT/GPA, Rutgers' PT is not that way. The PT students actually NEED to be PT because they have full-time jobs and commitments that would prevent them form enrolling full-time.


This definitely answers the concern above. I PMed you if you didn't check the inbox.

User avatar
TTH
Posts: 10384
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 am

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby TTH » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:31 am

I voted for Rutgers, like most other people. The blawgosphere is full of horror stories about the travails of Cardozo and BLS grads, but beyond that, the COL discount at Rutgers versus living in NYC always hangs over all of these comparisons. NYC COL would make it hard for me to pull the trigger on Fordham for anything less than a full scholarship, let alone 'Dozo/BLS.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:03 pm

TipTravHoot wrote:I voted for Rutgers, like most other people. The blawgosphere is full of horror stories about the travails of Cardozo and BLS grads, but beyond that, the COL discount at Rutgers versus living in NYC always hangs over all of these comparisons. NYC COL would make it hard for me to pull the trigger on Fordham for anything less than a full scholarship, let alone 'Dozo/BLS.


I suppose the real question is if there is any difference in schools ability to facilitate developmental skills, whether through clinical training or networking interaction.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:23 pm

champ33 wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:
get it to x wrote:I haven't visited any of them, but from what I've read online they seem to be filled with standard student bodies who would tend to commute to school rather than live in the immediate vicinity. Cardozo, though, might be an exception to this generalization. This could lead to a less-cohesive student body environment than what you might be looking for, but again I'm not certain. I don't think any of them give off the vibe of being a "feely-touchy" place, but I could be dead wrong on this one. I don't think any of them offers anything different on the surface. If you have your heart set on clerking for a judge in Brooklyn or other small specialty courses/clinics that may begin to differentiate them from one another. For big picture stuff, I think they're interchangeable.


I mean any school that isn't a centralized campus will have this issue if I understand what you are saying correctly.


I've sent a deposit to Rutgers and my only real concern is the sort of environment you're talking about.. i got the sense maybe that students aren't as cohesive due to many commuting or having families, I know that this is at any school but Rutgers has a PT program and the location just seems conducive to this. feel free to correct me.


Champ, what do you think from the responses following your concern?

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Tier 1.5: Rutgers-N v. Cardozo v. Seton Hall v. Brooklyn

Postby bernie shmegma » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:54 pm

How can over 700 people check this thread and not vote in it? WTF.

Seton Hall's a big loser on TLS huh?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests