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
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 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:03 am

Seton Hall's a big loser on TLS huh?


As you noted in one of your earlier posts, you know a lot of lawyers in your area that graduated from SHU. SHU does place well in NJ, but that's really it. It is touted as a 'regional' school but really it is a state school (and thus it is silly to pay SHU price when you can get a sweet deal from Rutgers). SHU grads have very little access to the NY market.

Make no mistake that Jersey does 'keep it in the family'--as you can verify, there are tons of judges, law clerks, big/midlawyers in NJ that graduated from SHU. Judges take a lot of SHU students as law clerks. But that of course does not mean the typical SHU alum does well.

The problem with it, like Bklyn type schools, is the unjustifiable cost. Also, SHU was basically "the shot heard around the internet" about overpriced schools, and it all started with this famous article and one Scott Bullock:

--LinkRemoved--

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 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:28 am

SteelReserve wrote:
Seton Hall's a big loser on TLS huh?


As you noted in one of your earlier posts, you know a lot of lawyers in your area that graduated from SHU. SHU does place well in NJ, but that's really it. It is touted as a 'regional' school but really it is a state school (and thus it is silly to pay SHU price when you can get a sweet deal from Rutgers). SHU grads have very little access to the NY market.

Make no mistake that Jersey does 'keep it in the family'--as you can verify, there are tons of judges, law clerks, big/midlawyers in NJ that graduated from SHU. Judges take a lot of SHU students as law clerks. But that of course does not mean the typical SHU alum does well.

The problem with it, like Bklyn type schools, is the unjustifiable cost. Also, SHU was basically "the shot heard around the internet" about overpriced schools, and it all started with this famous article and one Scott Bullock:

--LinkRemoved--


Unjustifiable cost coupled with marginal placement results. Rutgers, Brooklyn, Dozo', SJU, and SHU place relatively the same. Rutgers might even place the best out of all of the group. Might as well go with the school that's going to cost you the least.

User avatar
chicago520
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:13 pm

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

Postby chicago520 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:39 am

get it to x wrote:
SteelReserve wrote:
Seton Hall's a big loser on TLS huh?


As you noted in one of your earlier posts, you know a lot of lawyers in your area that graduated from SHU. SHU does place well in NJ, but that's really it. It is touted as a 'regional' school but really it is a state school (and thus it is silly to pay SHU price when you can get a sweet deal from Rutgers). SHU grads have very little access to the NY market.

Make no mistake that Jersey does 'keep it in the family'--as you can verify, there are tons of judges, law clerks, big/midlawyers in NJ that graduated from SHU. Judges take a lot of SHU students as law clerks. But that of course does not mean the typical SHU alum does well.

The problem with it, like Bklyn type schools, is the unjustifiable cost. Also, SHU was basically "the shot heard around the internet" about overpriced schools, and it all started with this famous article and one Scott Bullock:

--LinkRemoved--


Unjustifiable cost coupled with marginal placement results. Rutgers, Brooklyn, Dozo', SJU, and SHU place relatively the same. Rutgers might even place the best out of all of the group. Might as well go with the school that's going to cost you the least.



I know people that go to every school listed above. Brooklyn is terrible, re: JDU. SJU and Seton Hall are likewise mediocre. RUTGERS is going through a fiscal crisis, not the time to go!

Go to Cardozo. In the next few years (as in the last few years) it will rise, and from what I hear, its clinics/journals are great.

User avatar
wadeny
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:52 pm

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

Postby wadeny » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:46 am

This one isn't even close. Rutgers is by far the cheapest and seems to have (relatively speaking) the lowest stipulation to keep your scholarship. Cardozo probably has the best overall academic reputation of the four, but it's not worth that much crippling debt.

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 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:51 am

wadeny wrote:This one isn't even close. Rutgers is by far the cheapest and seems to have (relatively speaking) the lowest stipulation to keep your scholarship. Cardozo probably has the best overall academic reputation of the four, but it's not worth that much crippling debt.


Agreed regarding Cardozo. May be on the rise, but the cost is too much at this point in its development. Just my two cents.

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 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:04 pm

SteelReserve wrote:
Seton Hall's a big loser on TLS huh?


As you noted in one of your earlier posts, you know a lot of lawyers in your area that graduated from SHU. SHU does place well in NJ, but that's really it. It is touted as a 'regional' school but really it is a state school (and thus it is silly to pay SHU price when you can get a sweet deal from Rutgers). SHU grads have very little access to the NY market.

Make no mistake that Jersey does 'keep it in the family'--as you can verify, there are tons of judges, law clerks, big/midlawyers in NJ that graduated from SHU. Judges take a lot of SHU students as law clerks. But that of course does not mean the typical SHU alum does well.

The problem with it, like Bklyn type schools, is the unjustifiable cost. Also, SHU was basically "the shot heard around the internet" about overpriced schools, and it all started with this famous article and one Scott Bullock:

--LinkRemoved--


I myself, happen to be aware of the placement for SHU in Jersey as well. From the circles I affiliate with, SHU sounds pretty good as indicated by your comments and as is reflected in the state numbers.
But I have pretty much counted it out for many reasons. Scott Bullock is not one of them.

Rutgers is really a much better school than its ranking shows. RU, unlike other state schools doesn't focus in every way it can to stay top 50 like other state schools. Instead it serves NJ as much as possible while maintaining what it knows is a quality education. NJ is a tough state to serve and what RU does is quite amazing. However, that service does not do itself justice when it comes to USNWR. If SHU, BLS, Dozo do EVERYTHING in their power to climb USNWR and RU does more than any other Top 100 school where the results of which have the opposite affect, then I think where all of these aforementioned schools are in proximity to each other with biglaw numbers, employment, rankings etc. speaks a world of difference for Rutgers. The education they provide should be what matters and in that regard, all things considered, I see them as an Illinois or Indiana that just doesn't get caught up with USNWR.

I read the Scott Bullock article the other day when I found a thread on TLS where he came up in conversation. I agree that may have a lot to do with the TLS environment. Either way, SHU is hard to justify.

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 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:47 pm

get it to x wrote:
wadeny wrote:This one isn't even close. Rutgers is by far the cheapest and seems to have (relatively speaking) the lowest stipulation to keep your scholarship. Cardozo probably has the best overall academic reputation of the four, but it's not worth that much crippling debt.


Agreed regarding Cardozo. May be on the rise, but the cost is too much at this point in its development. Just my two cents.


So I presume that people would poll very differently if cost was no issue. Am I stating the obvious? In other words is there that big of a difference between Rutgers and Cardozo without cost mattering, if one is most likely going to end up in NJ anyway. Minus cost and minus NY city Big law, does one gain more experience at one law school over the other to prepare them for NJ legal market, whether as a prosecutor, lobbyist, mid size firm, Non-profit attorney etc.?

I am curious to know if people think Cardozo is the better SCHOOL.

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 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:06 pm

bernie shmegma wrote:
get it to x wrote:
wadeny wrote:This one isn't even close. Rutgers is by far the cheapest and seems to have (relatively speaking) the lowest stipulation to keep your scholarship. Cardozo probably has the best overall academic reputation of the four, but it's not worth that much crippling debt.


Agreed regarding Cardozo. May be on the rise, but the cost is too much at this point in its development. Just my two cents.


So I presume that people would poll very differently if cost was no issue. Am I stating the obvious? In other words is there that big of a difference between Rutgers and Cardozo without cost mattering, if one is most likely going to end up in NJ anyway. Minus cost and minus NY city Big law, does one gain more experience at one law school over the other to prepare them for NJ legal market, whether as a prosecutor, lobbyist, mid size firm, Non-profit attorney etc.?

I am curious to know if people think Cardozo is the better SCHOOL.


In a perfect world, if you have a full-ride to each, I believe it would come down to the small things that differentiates each one from the other. If you want the most well respected faculty members teaching you maybe it's Brooklyn or maybe Cardozo offers a clinic that the rest do not. Maybe you want to live and study in Manhattan. Those are things that I would be focusing on. I'm really not a believer that any one law school is better than the other academically. Everyone teaches the same basic sequence of courses. It's job placement, lay prestige, electives/clinics, and those God-forsaken USNWR rankings that make one school "better" than the next. So Cardozo may offer what you're looking for in terms of more extensive clinics and electives which may make it the better school in that regard. However, I'm skeptical they teach torts or civ pro any better than Brooklyn or the rest.

Unrelated to your inquiry, I think Cardozo is hot right now. It might continue to be so for some time (2-5 years). It may establish itself next to Fordham as a nice viable option for those who cannot be admitted to NYU or Columbia. If I'm thinking correctly NYU was in a similar situation 20-25 years ago. Right now, though, its sticker price and COL is too risky b/c it could very well not crack that level. If it was a state school and/or a private institution with lower tuition I would say that it is probably worth your money.

Rutgers, Brooklyn, SJU, and SHU, (particularly Rutgers) don't seem to be making a move up the rankings. Frankly, RU's holistic admissions approach and, from what I see, a real dedication to quality education and the people of New Jersey will probably keep it where it is ranking-wise for a long time. Personally, I like a school that draws the line in the sand and believes that there's more to life than USNWR and knows what it is and where it's going. But that's just me.

blsingindisguise
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am

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

Postby blsingindisguise » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:34 pm

chicago520 wrote:
Go to Cardozo. In the next few years (as in the last few years) it will rise, and from what I hear, its clinics/journals are great.


This is nonsense. Over the last decade Cardozo has basically fluctuated up and down in between 50 and 60. It's not "rising". Schools almost never "rise".

Journals are student run so they're going to be basically the same at any T2 - you do lots of boring menial work like checking citations and then eventually you might get some say in what articles or student notes get published. Unless you're at a top school this experience is not going to vary much.

Clinics are mostly just internships with a little more hand-holding. Most schools have them and most schools will also let you do your own internship for credit, and my experience with my own internship has been much better than the "clinic" I did.

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 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:40 pm

Ehh, although I agree schools almost never "rise," I do concur Cardozo is hot right now ( I feel like zoolander). It may not become NYU but despite what many TLSers think, it very well may become to Fordham even more like what NYU is to Columbia than it already is. It also may not... but there seems to be something phenomenal with this time period and Cardozo's livelihood.

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 25, 2010 10:44 pm

Last day to decide for May program...

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 » Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:46 pm

:idea:

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 » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:26 pm

Which did you choose?

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 » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:58 am

SteelReserve wrote:Which did you choose?


I'm at 99.5% going to Rutgers-Newark. I withdrew from Cardozo and Seton Hall. I'm holding onto Brooklyn with a .5% chance just in case. It took me a few days of cynicism, anxiety, doubt, and superficial concerns before I finally gave up other two. Now I'm much more excited and comfortable about RU for many reasons and got almost all of the buyers remorse out of the system. This process would have been natural no matter what school I was favoring since they were all close considerations. Thanks for checking in.

User avatar
kittenmittons
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:24 pm

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

Postby kittenmittons » Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:30 am

reasonabledoubt?

User avatar
Joan Hollaway
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:07 pm

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

Postby Joan Hollaway » Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:34 am

tier 1.5? guess im attending tier .2, sweet :D

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 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:08 pm

kittenmittons wrote:reasonabledoubt?


No completely unreasonable. Sociological Vanity and Rankings Non-sense.

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 » Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:53 pm

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=113312

For future browsers: Go to the above thread.

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 » Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:57 pm

:idea:

User avatar
DonReady
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:18 pm

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

Postby DonReady » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:26 pm

bernie shmegma wrote: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).


I'm looking at many of the same schools as you and am struggling with my own decision. The NY schools seem to have better clinic opportunities if you want to do something beyond a public-interest type of clinic or if you want to do a clinic early on in your law school studies. I asked a dean at SHU why this seems to be the case and she told me that NJ has different restrictions on law students representing clients in a clinic setting. Because of these restrictions, the NJ schools' clinics are centered on public interest topics.

If you're ok with public interest clinics then this won't be a big factor for you.

I ruled out Rutgers since I'm going to live in NY (lose the benefit of in-state tuition) and even in-state RU-N's cost was higher than what I was offered elsewhere. If you can go to RU-N for a lower price than the others, then RU-N wins.

donewithannarbor
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:41 pm

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

Postby donewithannarbor » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:04 am

Any concern about a lack of cohesiveness at Rutgers or about it being the ultimate commuter school is erroneous. (Seton Hall, being so close to Penn Station and not offering a dorm or a campus-- and being a much larger school (in terms of class sizes)-- has much more of a problem in this regard.) You'd have to be a totally unsocial introvert to feel unconnected at R-N; further, it is a common misconception that a) the average law school isn't a commuter school-- because most are-- and b) that R-N is worse than average in this (because it's actually better, offering dorms and a decent-sized community of students who live elsewhere in Newark).

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 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:14 pm

donewithannarbor wrote:Any concern about a lack of cohesiveness at Rutgers or about it being the ultimate commuter school is erroneous. (Seton Hall, being so close to Penn Station and not offering a dorm or a campus-- and being a much larger school (in terms of class sizes)-- has much more of a problem in this regard.) You'd have to be a totally unsocial introvert to feel unconnected at R-N; further, it is a common misconception that a) the average law school isn't a commuter school-- because most are-- and b) that R-N is worse than average in this (because it's actually better, offering dorms and a decent-sized community of students who live elsewhere in Newark).


Good to know my man. GO BLUE!

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 » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:56 pm

:idea:




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sadieshadow and 3 guests