Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools? Forum

[quetzalcoatl]

I would like to thank everyone that posted a serious reply; they are more in line with what I was trying to understand regarding how the lower tier schools are viewed. I will actually be surveyed off the job (and out of the military) due to injuries sustained in Afghanistan.

I am looking for another career, and would like to become a prosecutor, my GPA is 3.58 and my practice scores on the LSAT are in the high 150's low 160's and I just started practicing, several more months to go until I am comfortable with my score.

There is a part of me that does not want to commute any farther than I have to so Touro would be convenient for me. However, if I cannot accomplish my goals by going there then I may have to re-think the commute factor.
Again, thank you for your advice, and useful opinions.

Regardless of what anyone has said, thank you for your service. I'm of the belief that some "softs" actually do make a difference. In your life, I believe this to be true. Keep working hard and ROCK the LSAT! Good luck to you and thanks again!!!

There are some schools out there that are "toilets". At the same time, there are plenty of legit schools in the T3 range. Most people say T3 is not worth it because of the debt. They might not be in the same situation as you. Think about coming out of UG with 100K+ in student loans, then planning on throwing another 100K+ on top of that, and then only expecting to make 60K a year. Not a smart move for most people, especially when you consider the 3 years pay they miss out on. If you can get your LSAT up to the mid 160s and land a fat scholly (maybe full ride at some places), then go to a T3 and be happy with a new and hopefully exciting career change. It seems like you have thought this out, but so many kids coming straight out of UG think "I want to make a lot of money, Im gonna go to law school!" and dont consider what their employment prospects will most likely be from a T3/4. For most of these people, going to a T3 law school without a large scholarship is financial suicide.

[84Sunbird2000]

TO SoDooFly: No, I was saying I believe Top 25% at T4 SHOULD equal Top 50% at a school ranked around 50, not that T4 grads currently enjoy such opportunities.

Oh, and also, to all those making comparisons to med school, your idea about MCAT scores are way off. While I'd agree the harm a less-competent doctor can do is greater to the harm a less-competent lawyer can do, and thus a more cautious admissions process is agreeable, a 30 on the MCAT with a decent GPA (3.5) is definitely competitive. There are several MD schools that have MCAT averages around 27. DO schools dip into the 24-25 range. Comparing percentiles, a 27 MCAT is 153-154 on the LSAT. A 30 on the MCAT is 79th percentile, which is in the 159-160 range on the LSAT. Even a 34 MCAT is a 164-165 equivalent LSAT.

That's dumb. You realize two very separate groups of ppl are taking these exams right? Those who have to go through natural science and maintain a realistic med school GPA vs. those who major in anything as the LSAT/law school has 0 pre-reqs lol.

People who start college wanting to be a doctor but end up switching because they cant make the cut are a dime a dozen, i.e. those med school applicants are already a 'combed' selection.

And dont even get me started on how DIFFERENT the tests are (in what they even test for)!

Cheezus Rice, I didn't say that a student getting a 165 LSAT would automatically get a 34 or vice versa. However, since they are both out of the pool of college graduates (across all schools), the selectivity is pretty similar. Of course the LSAT tests a different set of abilities than the MCAT (which is largely knowledge based, except for the verbal section). That doesn't mean one is "harder" simply because it is different. Moreover, 3.5 average entrance GPA isn't terribly dissimilar from what T1 AND T2 Law schools average. Natural Science GPAs definitely aren't deflated to the same degree that Physics/Chem GPAs do.

[DoubleChecks]

TO SoDooFly: No, I was saying I believe Top 25% at T4 SHOULD equal Top 50% at a school ranked around 50, not that T4 grads currently enjoy such opportunities.

Oh, and also, to all those making comparisons to med school, your idea about MCAT scores are way off. While I'd agree the harm a less-competent doctor can do is greater to the harm a less-competent lawyer can do, and thus a more cautious admissions process is agreeable, a 30 on the MCAT with a decent GPA (3.5) is definitely competitive. There are several MD schools that have MCAT averages around 27. DO schools dip into the 24-25 range. Comparing percentiles, a 27 MCAT is 153-154 on the LSAT. A 30 on the MCAT is 79th percentile, which is in the 159-160 range on the LSAT. Even a 34 MCAT is a 164-165 equivalent LSAT.

That's dumb. You realize two very separate groups of ppl are taking these exams right? Those who have to go through natural science and maintain a realistic med school GPA vs. those who major in anything as the LSAT/law school has 0 pre-reqs lol.

People who start college wanting to be a doctor but end up switching because they cant make the cut are a dime a dozen, i.e. those med school applicants are already a 'combed' selection.

And dont even get me started on how DIFFERENT the tests are (in what they even test for)!

Cheezus Rice, I didn't say that a student getting a 165 LSAT would automatically get a 34 or vice versa. However, since they are both out of the pool of college graduates (across all schools), the selectivity is pretty similar. Of course the LSAT tests a different set of abilities than the MCAT (which is largely knowledge based, except for the verbal section). That doesn't mean one is "harder" simply because it is different. Moreover, 3.5 average entrance GPA isn't terribly dissimilar from what T1 AND T2 Law schools average. Natural Science GPAs definitely aren't deflated to the same degree that Physics/Chem GPAs do.

I didn't say a student getting a 165 LSAT would automatically get a 34 MCAT score either. I just said comparing the two percentages (which you did) is stupid because they are from entirely different groups of students. Natural science is more rigorous than liberal arts (generally). There are a lot of pre-req courses necessary for them too, so you cant have graduated as one thing and just go and take the MCAT (while you could w/ the LSAT). There arent many weed-out classes during college freshman yr either for liberal arts majors, but there are for natural science. Generally speaking, to say a 3.5 in some liberal arts major = a 3.5 in some natural science major (in difficulty) will probably be incorrect.

And yes, it is not fair to compare the MCAT to the LSAT, but being familiar w/ both...just my personal opinion...the MCAT is a lot harder. Also, there are probably half as many ppl sitting for the MCAT in a yr as for the LSAT, but once again this is due to the selectivity of premed (relative to prelaw) in the first place. Chances are, you're competing against a group of smarter people. <-- now i realize how off-putting and possibly incorrect that statement is, but bear w/ me, i cant think of a shorter way of saying "individuals who have gone through a more rigorous major and are more accustomed to the hard work necessary to prepare for a standardized exam"

Whereas I may have been confident about scoring in the top 99% for the LSAT, i would not be able to do so (unless extremely lucky or put in a LOT more work) for the MCAT (99% for MCAT is like what, a 39?). I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of friends who have taken both and their results, but tbh anecdotes kinda mean shit.

edit: i just realized that your above post in regards to my comment...didnt really address anything i said, but rather just refuted a bunch of things i never said in the first place lol

[Borhas]

<---- weeded out by organic chemistry (the 5 credit C for Ochem2 also hurt gpa for law school )

[84Sunbird2000]

TO SoDooFly: No, I was saying I believe Top 25% at T4 SHOULD equal Top 50% at a school ranked around 50, not that T4 grads currently enjoy such opportunities.

Oh, and also, to all those making comparisons to med school, your idea about MCAT scores are way off. While I'd agree the harm a less-competent doctor can do is greater to the harm a less-competent lawyer can do, and thus a more cautious admissions process is agreeable, a 30 on the MCAT with a decent GPA (3.5) is definitely competitive. There are several MD schools that have MCAT averages around 27. DO schools dip into the 24-25 range. Comparing percentiles, a 27 MCAT is 153-154 on the LSAT. A 30 on the MCAT is 79th percentile, which is in the 159-160 range on the LSAT. Even a 34 MCAT is a 164-165 equivalent LSAT.

That's dumb. You realize two very separate groups of ppl are taking these exams right? Those who have to go through natural science and maintain a realistic med school GPA vs. those who major in anything as the LSAT/law school has 0 pre-reqs lol.

People who start college wanting to be a doctor but end up switching because they cant make the cut are a dime a dozen, i.e. those med school applicants are already a 'combed' selection.

And dont even get me started on how DIFFERENT the tests are (in what they even test for)!

Cheezus Rice, I didn't say that a student getting a 165 LSAT would automatically get a 34 or vice versa. However, since they are both out of the pool of college graduates (across all schools), the selectivity is pretty similar. Of course the LSAT tests a different set of abilities than the MCAT (which is largely knowledge based, except for the verbal section). That doesn't mean one is "harder" simply because it is different. Moreover, 3.5 average entrance GPA isn't terribly dissimilar from what T1 AND T2 Law schools average. Natural Science GPAs definitely aren't deflated to the same degree that Physics/Chem GPAs do.

I didn't say a student getting a 165 LSAT would automatically get a 34 MCAT score either. I just said comparing the two percentages (which you did) is stupid because they are from entirely different groups of students. Natural science is more rigorous than liberal arts (generally). There are a lot of pre-req courses necessary for them too, so you cant have graduated as one thing and just go and take the MCAT (while you could w/ the LSAT). There arent many weed-out classes during college freshman yr either for liberal arts majors, but there are for natural science. Generally speaking, to say a 3.5 in some liberal arts major = a 3.5 in some natural science major (in difficulty) will probably be incorrect.

And yes, it is not fair to compare the MCAT to the LSAT, but being familiar w/ both...just my personal opinion...the MCAT is a lot harder. Also, there are probably half as many ppl sitting for the MCAT in a yr as for the LSAT, but once again this is due to the selectivity of premed (relative to prelaw) in the first place. Chances are, you're competing against a group of smarter people. <-- now i realize how off-putting and possibly incorrect that statement is, but bear w/ me, i cant think of a shorter way of saying "individuals who have gone through a more rigorous major and are more accustomed to the hard work necessary to prepare for a standardized exam"

Whereas I may have been confident about scoring in the top 99% for the LSAT, i would not be able to do so (unless extremely lucky or put in a LOT more work) for the MCAT (99% for MCAT is like what, a 39?). I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of friends who have taken both and their results, but tbh anecdotes kinda mean shit.

edit: i just realized that your above post in regards to my comment...didnt really address anything i said, but rather just refuted a bunch of things i never said in the first place lol

Well, I was clarifying my position from the first post in the second post. Thus, I think that both your first comment and my rebuttal addressed different concepts. I.E. we made assumptions about the intent of each post that were addressed tangentially but not directly by the content of each preceding post. Making things worse, my first post was addressing general points made two pages earlier, which themselves were not terribly specific.

But, I do think that your inherent assumption came through in the last post you made. You believe natural science to be tougher than liberal arts. While this may be true to a small extent, I doubt it's as large as the gulf between hard science and natural science. Plus, pre-med req's are really only about 1/3 of the total credits one has to take in college. You can satisfy all the requirements and still Major in History. So, I think that makes the perceived drag on GPA even smaller versus the general pool.

I was addressing your implied assumption (before you said it directly) when I argued that I don't have any reason to believe that it is harder - just different. This is strained, but ACT tests knowledge more than the SAT, which is closer to an IQ test. The MCAT is a bit more like the ACT, though more specific even.

Damn, this is off-topic. Sorry, and I understand the power of anecdotal arguments - they shape our perceptions beyond our conscious control, and that may not always be bad.

[DoubleChecks]

But, I do think that your inherent assumption came through in the last post you made. You believe natural science to be tougher than liberal arts. While this may be true to a small extent, I doubt it's as large as the gulf between hard science and natural science. Plus, pre-med req's are really only about 1/3 of the total credits one has to take in college. You can satisfy all the requirements and still Major in History. So, I think that makes the perceived drag on GPA even smaller versus the general pool.

I was addressing your implied assumption (before you said it directly) when I argued that I don't have any reason to believe that it is harder - just different. This is strained, but ACT tests knowledge more than the SAT, which is closer to an IQ test. The MCAT is a bit more like the ACT, though more specific even.

Damn, this is off-topic. Sorry, and I understand the power of anecdotal arguments - they shape our perceptions beyond our conscious control, and that may not always be bad.

I tend to believe that most med school applicants, while they could major in history and take all the pre-reqs, do not take a non-science major. In fact, i'd say most choose a hard science (by hard science do you mean like chem/bio?). This makes them more competitive, and the med school admissions process is much more rigorous than the law school one (and slightly less about the numbers, which means some other things prob go up in importance).

Also, like i stated before, the number of ppl who take the MCAT in a yr is prob ~1/2 of those who take the LSAT. Factor in non-traditional applicants who come back and try for the LSAT or other ppl in business majors trying to see if law school is for them, you end up getting a much larger (and inherently different) sample than its culled pre-med counterpart.

The part about LSAT < MCAT or them being different, i have no problem w/ you saying the MCAT is not harder, just different. imo, it really is like comparing apples to oranges...i just personally find applies easier to eat

And yes, anecdotes do at times affect our judgment outside of our conscious control, but i sort of had this opinion before the anecdotes came around lol.

[MrSoOoFLy]

Oh how debates evolve over the internet.

[Always Credited]

The LSAT has about a .4 correlation to 1L grades (and that is its best correlation!), while UGPA is around a .3. Those who finish towards the top of their class at a T4 are likely those who (even if they had gone to a "better" school) would have significantly outclassed their LSAT/GPA anywhere. Thinking that someone who scores a 151 on the LSAT is simply not cut out to be a lawyer is BS. I don't see how a T14 grad who does really shitty in school not getting a job is unfair. I do see how finishing top 1/4 at TTTT and not getting similar job opportunities to someone at median at a T1 is unfair and illogical. The poor correlations simply don't support the notion that entrance requirements = quality of lawyer produced. It will mean the likelihood of someone being a better lawyer is slightly higher, but it's very, very far from being foolproof.

What I'm discussing has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of potential lawyers from TTT's, and everything to do with the numbers of lawyers from ALL law schools. TTT's simply let in the overall least qualified candidates, have piss poor employment prospects, and are so often located in over-saturated markets - therefore these schools should be the first to get the axe.

[GATORTIM]

The LSAT has about a .4 correlation to 1L grades (and that is its best correlation!), while UGPA is around a .3. Those who finish towards the top of their class at a T4 are likely those who (even if they had gone to a "better" school) would have significantly outclassed their LSAT/GPA anywhere. Thinking that someone who scores a 151 on the LSAT is simply not cut out to be a lawyer is BS. I don't see how a T14 grad who does really shitty in school not getting a job is unfair. I do see how finishing top 1/4 at TTTT and not getting similar job opportunities to someone at median at a T1 is unfair and illogical. The poor correlations simply don't support the notion that entrance requirements = quality of lawyer produced. It will mean the likelihood of someone being a better lawyer is slightly higher, but it's very, very far from being foolproof.

What I'm discussing has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of potential lawyers from TTT's, and everything to do with the numbers of lawyers from ALL law schools. TTT's simply let in the overall least qualified candidates, have piss poor employment prospects, and are so often located in over-saturated markets - therefore these schools should be the first to get the axe.

bro, go to bed, get a good nights rest and resume your assault on TTT's and us unqualified non T-14 degenerates in the morning; your effort today was valiant.

[Always Credited]

The LSAT has about a .4 correlation to 1L grades (and that is its best correlation!), while UGPA is around a .3. Those who finish towards the top of their class at a T4 are likely those who (even if they had gone to a "better" school) would have significantly outclassed their LSAT/GPA anywhere. Thinking that someone who scores a 151 on the LSAT is simply not cut out to be a lawyer is BS. I don't see how a T14 grad who does really shitty in school not getting a job is unfair. I do see how finishing top 1/4 at TTTT and not getting similar job opportunities to someone at median at a T1 is unfair and illogical. The poor correlations simply don't support the notion that entrance requirements = quality of lawyer produced. It will mean the likelihood of someone being a better lawyer is slightly higher, but it's very, very far from being foolproof.

What I'm discussing has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of potential lawyers from TTT's, and everything to do with the numbers of lawyers from ALL law schools. TTT's simply let in the overall least qualified candidates, have piss poor employment prospects, and are so often located in over-saturated markets - therefore these schools should be the first to get the axe.

bro, go to bed, get a good nights rest and resume your assault on TTT's and us unqualified non T-14 degenerates in the morning; your effort today was valiant.

haha, that made me laugh...thanks for that really though, i didn't mean it to turn into an assault on anyone, or to besmirch T3/T4 attendees in any way...I hate the schools and the way they do business, not the people attending them. The rules are set by the ABA, and we can only play the game as it is...people attending those schools are just playing the game.

[jayn3]

people attending those schools are just playing the game.

uhh and people paying thousands of dollars and studying for months on end to boost their scores just enough to get into the schools semi-arbitrarily named T14 aren't?

[DoubleChecks]

people attending those schools are just playing the game.

uhh and people paying thousands of dollars and studying for months on end to boost their scores just enough to get into the schools semi-arbitrarily named T14 aren't?

Was he arguing against this? lol

Always Credited just got slammed from both sides of the argument...bam!

[fwaam]

So I'm curious. People here are acting like only the top 10%-ish of TTTT graduates get jobs at all. (As it happens, I know a successful lawyer who graduated from Touro--just found out the other day that that's where he went.) But, from TLS's profile:

In 2006, 77.3 percent of Touro Law Center students were known to be employed within nine months of graduation. Of those, 88 percent were employed in New York State, earning a median salary of $65,000 in the private sector and $52,875 in the public sector. The employment rate will likely decline in the currently weak legal market.

By "known to be," I take it they've looked at the response rate, with the assumption that the non-responders are probably unemployed. There's no indication from the profile that they're all working at Chipotle and calling it "business"--apparently government and PI are common, and anyway you wouldn't make $65,000/year at Chipotle.

So, a good 75% were finding jobs--let's say 2/3 were finding legal jobs, because if a huge percentage went into "business" TLS would call them out on it--before the recession. Granted, times are tough now, and when I looked on Touro's career website, their stats were so unspecific as to be meaningless. But a 75% chance of being employed isn't a "terrible investment that no one should ever make"--so, what gives? Is Touro flat-out lying? Or are the jobs grads find just not especially prestigious?

[Always Credited]

people attending those schools are just playing the game.

uhh and people paying thousands of dollars and studying for months on end to boost their scores just enough to get into the schools semi-arbitrarily named T14 aren't?

Was he arguing against this? lol

Always Credited just got slammed from both sides of the argument...bam!

Dude I argued against the schools doing it and the ABA allowing it to happen...not the students for taking advantage of the situation. As for jayn3...I have no idea what you're trying to say.

The ABA sets the rules, which are lax. Numerous T3/T4 schools abide by the rules and use them to make big profits while outright lying to their students. The students "playing the game" of legal education attend those schools. It isn't always the student's fault they're being misled - its the ABA and school's fault. Is this unclear?

[DerrickRose]

So I'm curious. People here are acting like only the top 10%-ish of TTTT graduates get jobs at all. (As it happens, I know a successful lawyer who graduated from Touro--just found out the other day that that's where he went.) But, from TLS's profile:

In 2006, 77.3 percent of Touro Law Center students were known to be employed within nine months of graduation. Of those, 88 percent were employed in New York State, earning a median salary of $65,000 in the private sector and $52,875 in the public sector. The employment rate will likely decline in the currently weak legal market.

By "known to be," I take it they've looked at the response rate, with the assumption that the non-responders are probably unemployed. There's no indication from the profile that they're all working at Chipotle and calling it "business"--apparently government and PI are common, and anyway you wouldn't make $65,000/year at Chipotle.

So, a good 75% were finding jobs--let's say 2/3 were finding legal jobs, because if a huge percentage went into "business" TLS would call them out on it--before the recession. Granted, times are tough now, and when I looked on Touro's career website, their stats were so unspecific as to be meaningless. But a 75% chance of being employed isn't a "terrible investment that no one should ever make"--so, what gives? Is Touro flat-out lying? Or are the jobs grads find just not especially prestigious?

Okay, lets play the math here.

1. Touro has an attrition rate of about 35%, so all the numbers you have there are out of only 65% of the people that decide to go there.

2. In a fun bit of reading comprehension, they only give the numbers for New York State, meaning the median salary number are almost certainly lower wherever else Touro students might be employed, namely New Jersey.

3. You're assumption of an 100% response rate is unfounded. Some schools have deplorably low response rates, but lets give Touro the benefit of the doubt and say that there is only 10% unemployed/non-legal non-respondents.

4. I don't have the numbers at hand but school like Touro usually have 30 or so % of the class in non-legal jobs. We don't know whether these are higher or lower salaries, and we don't know whether the JD was outcome determinative in getting the job, but we do know they aren't "lawyers"

5. Those numbers are from 2006, the absolute peak of the legal hiring boom.

What does it add up to?

31% of people who chose to enter Touro Law School for the Class of 2006 ended up working as lawyers, during the biggest legal hiring boom in American history. Among that subset the average salary is almost certainly less than $60,000. Any student that paid sticker is in debt $165,000, which over a 25-year repayment period requires payments of $1,145 a month. Financial aid calculators estimate that you need an annual salary of $137,000 to pay it back.

[jayn3]

people attending those schools are just playing the game.

uhh and people paying thousands of dollars and studying for months on end to boost their scores just enough to get into the schools semi-arbitrarily named T14 aren't?

Was he arguing against this? lol

Always Credited just got slammed from both sides of the argument...bam!

Dude I argued against the schools doing it and the ABA allowing it to happen...not the students for taking advantage of the situation. As for jayn3...I have no idea what you're trying to say.

The ABA sets the rules, which are lax. Numerous T3/T4 schools abide by the rules and use them to make big profits while outright lying to their students. The students "playing the game" of legal education attend those schools. It isn't always the student's fault they're being misled - its the ABA and school's fault. Is this unclear?

let me rephrase....

the application process, as per TLS's recommendations, is a fucking rat race. the LSAT is designed to measure reasoning ability, but people who have the means jack up the curve by taking expensive prep courses. they do this because they believe USNWR rankings will determine their success in life. i agree that T3/T4 schools are sketchy by definition, but i don't believe insane devotion to the T14 is justified. the fact that people will pass up scholarships at UCLA for sticker at any T14 makes no sense to me. to me, that's more screwed up than your complaint that the ABA allows T3/T4 schools to glut the market.

after a certain point, life success comes down to your personal ability to succeed in school and impress prospective employers. sure, HYS will get you further than a T3/T4 school on name alone. but if you're good enough to make it into a top 30 or so school, the bottom line is that it's on your shoulders to make your own damn luck.

there, i drank more wine, did it make me more eloquent?

[Always Credited]

It certainly clarified your position...I just don't think your position is very relevant to my own posts on the matter - that's why I was confused when you quoted me. I don't have any personal devotion to the T14 - I'm attending GWU because it made more sense for me than Cornell did. I agree with everything you said - I just feel that all lawyers would be more successful if there were less lawyers.

Every profession has prep classes for its entrance exam...not every profession is overcrowded. If you were meaning to say that someone in hard economic circumstances would be at a disadvantage because they couldn't buy a course...well, you can buy all the prep tests for like $200. That's what I did - bingo, instant LSAT prep on the "cheap". If you can't afford even that...then I'm sorry. I hope you have the natural ability to score high enough for a T2 program - otherwise, such is life. Tough luck is tough. Everyone, everywhere is at some kind of disadvantage relative to someone else.

[DerrickRose]

the fact that people will pass up scholarships at UCLA for sticker at any T14 makes no sense to me.

That's because no one here would advocate that.

[DoubleChecks]

About prep courses and disadvantages...isnt that life? lol

That being said, i keep seeing ppl complain about how TLS ONLY talks about T14 and how it is make it or break it...that T2/T3 schools are so bad that they arent even worth considering EVAR.

Weird thing is, ive never gotten that impression. Sure there are lame posters that espouse such nonsense like a mantra, but there are also so many helpful posters that clarify and provide reasons why there is such a generalization. If someone wanted to practice in Cali and got into Cornell and UCLA w/ scholly, i bet everyone would vote UCLA. tbh, i see complaints about this "elitist" TLS mindset more than i see this actual mindset! lol maybe im just good at overlooking fluff (read: crap) that some flamers post is all...

[vanwinkle]

the fact that people will pass up scholarships at UCLA for sticker at any T14 makes no sense to me.

That's because no one here would advocate that.

I'd pass up a scholarship to UCLA for sticker at a T14, but I also would rather die than move to L.A.

[jayn3]

About prep courses and disadvantages...isnt that life? lol

That being said, i keep seeing ppl complain about how TLS ONLY talks about T14 and how it is make it or break it...that T2/T3 schools are so bad that they arent even worth considering EVAR.

Weird thing is, ive never gotten that impression. Sure there are lame posters that espouse such nonsense like a mantra, but there are also so many helpful posters that clarify and provide reasons why there is such a generalization. If someone wanted to practice in Cali and got into Cornell and UCLA w/ scholly, i bet everyone would vote UCLA. tbh, i see complaints about this "elitist" TLS mindset more than i see this actual mindset! lol maybe im just good at overlooking fluff (read: crap) that some flamers post is all...

fair enough.....it just seems like the reflex reaction is to bash lower-ranked schools. i'm not saying everyone is a douchebag about it, but at the very least i'd argue that the dominant attitude is pro-T14 & USNWR....whether or not people express it in a joking fashion.

now i'm curious, though:

-UCLA w/ half scholly vs boalt sticker
-northwestern w/half scholly vs uchicago sticker

what does tls recommend? (for the sake of argument, let's say programs of interest to the applicant are roughly equivalent)

[Tofu]

About prep courses and disadvantages...isnt that life? lol

That being said, i keep seeing ppl complain about how TLS ONLY talks about T14 and how it is make it or break it...that T2/T3 schools are so bad that they arent even worth considering EVAR.

Weird thing is, ive never gotten that impression. Sure there are lame posters that espouse such nonsense like a mantra, but there are also so many helpful posters that clarify and provide reasons why there is such a generalization. If someone wanted to practice in Cali and got into Cornell and UCLA w/ scholly, i bet everyone would vote UCLA. tbh, i see complaints about this "elitist" TLS mindset more than i see this actual mindset! lol maybe im just good at overlooking fluff (read: crap) that some flamers post is all...

i think the general mindset i've gotten was that non-t30 (or even t14/17/22) schools just aren't worth it for most people

[Kilpatrick]

Why wouldn't the dominant attitude be pro T14 and pro USNWR? People tend to be pro having jobs.

[DoubleChecks]

About prep courses and disadvantages...isnt that life? lol

That being said, i keep seeing ppl complain about how TLS ONLY talks about T14 and how it is make it or break it...that T2/T3 schools are so bad that they arent even worth considering EVAR.

Weird thing is, ive never gotten that impression. Sure there are lame posters that espouse such nonsense like a mantra, but there are also so many helpful posters that clarify and provide reasons why there is such a generalization. If someone wanted to practice in Cali and got into Cornell and UCLA w/ scholly, i bet everyone would vote UCLA. tbh, i see complaints about this "elitist" TLS mindset more than i see this actual mindset! lol maybe im just good at overlooking fluff (read: crap) that some flamers post is all...

fair enough.....it just seems like the reflex reaction is to bash lower-ranked schools. i'm not saying everyone is a douchebag about it, but at the very least i'd argue that the dominant attitude is pro-T14 & USNWR....whether or not people express it in a joking fashion.

now i'm curious, though:

-UCLA w/ half scholly vs boalt sticker
-northwestern w/half scholly vs uchicago sticker

what does tls recommend? (for the sake of argument, let's say programs of interest to the applicant are roughly equivalent)

well see thats why it gets tough and some TLS flamers come and...well...flame lol

need more details; where does the applicant want to practice after graduating? does he want to do a clerkship? interested in academia? biglaw only?

i know berkeley's tuition just skyrockted, but im guessing UCLA's did as well? if so, id take boalt sticker over UCLA half scholly personally...

...UChicago is def > northwestern when it comes to academia/clerkships, but if you just want to do normal biglaw, id really have to crunch more numbers lol

[Always Credited]

About prep courses and disadvantages...isnt that life? lol

That being said, i keep seeing ppl complain about how TLS ONLY talks about T14 and how it is make it or break it...that T2/T3 schools are so bad that they arent even worth considering EVAR.

Weird thing is, ive never gotten that impression. Sure there are lame posters that espouse such nonsense like a mantra, but there are also so many helpful posters that clarify and provide reasons why there is such a generalization. If someone wanted to practice in Cali and got into Cornell and UCLA w/ scholly, i bet everyone would vote UCLA. tbh, i see complaints about this "elitist" TLS mindset more than i see this actual mindset! lol maybe im just good at overlooking fluff (read: crap) that some flamers post is all...

fair enough.....it just seems like the reflex reaction is to bash lower-ranked schools. i'm not saying everyone is a douchebag about it, but at the very least i'd argue that the dominant attitude is pro-T14 & USNWR....whether or not people express it in a joking fashion.

now i'm curious, though:

-UCLA w/ half scholly vs boalt sticker
-northwestern w/half scholly vs uchicago sticker

what does tls recommend? (for the sake of argument, let's say programs of interest to the applicant are roughly equivalent)

I'd go Boalt straight up to be honest. I think TLS would generally agree.

NU $$ vs. Chic is tougher. It'd really depend on where one was at that point in time...for instance, married with kids, I'd say NU for sure to avoid to debt burden. But just starting out and going for biglaw or bust...Chi all the way, unless one was opposed to the debt or had a better feeling at NU. TLS would likely be split, leaning slightly towards Chi as putting themselves in a lifestyle where NU becomes advantageous is tough as a 23-24 year old.