Golden Gate University: Underrated or TTTToilet? Forum

[aguaman13]

While helpful in a number of of ways, this forum is occupied by a higher concentration of pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype confirming a-holes than anywhere I've ever seen or been...and I'm from Orange County.

Look, there are certainly some turds out there in terms of law schools, but are we really supposed to believe that the overwhelming majority of schools blow in the monumental way that the typical poster contends? Save yourselves the time of quoting this and responding with the yes that you believe will be a really clever answer. The answer is not yes. There are some legitimately attractive aspects to some lower ranked schools depending on your career goals and personal ideology. In fact, it could be argued that it is literally impossible to properly and honestly adress the merits of attending a school without taking those factors into account.

While crapping all over these schools, usually with no more ground to stand on than the original poster, you are failing to take into account an amazing number of factors. Let's look at just three that you schmucks are constantly forgetting about:

1) some people are not THAT concerned with income. Look at this statement:

If you don't mind doing public interest work in SF (which doesn't make sense given the high COL in the city) than go for it.

Doing public interest work doesn't make sense in a city with a high cost of living? WTF? Believe it or not, some people want to give back and do something to help others. Even if it means sacrificing a bit in terms of lifestyle. Sure, debt needs to be taken into account, but stop assuming that everyone else wants to plan their future with the sole purpose of maximizing their income. In fact, you may want to consider doing the same yourself.

2) not everyone can afford to sit out a year and take courses to improve an LSAT score. I keep reading statements such as "you should absolutely wait a year, improve your LSAT score and apply next cycle." How the hell can so many people assume that any of those things are easy to do? Waiting a year requires finding the means to support yourself during that period, which may seem like no big deal to someone who just went shopping with daddy's black card, but isn't. Also, a substantial improvement in LSAT score is possible, but not all that likely without taking a course, which also needs to be paid for.

3) People do well, both in terms of income and overall happiness, after graduating from schools outside the top-14, top-50, and yes even the top-100 (GASP!). Would a more prestigious name on your degree make things easier? Sure. However, the notion that anybody who graduates from one of these lower ranked schools is perpetually screwed is preposterous.

Original poster, I am also considering Golden Gate with a 158 LSAT and also have some extenuating circumstances regarding GPA that makes me a bit of a crapshoot at schools with higher rankings. I did research and find the public interest aspects of the school pretty intriguing. Do the research and make a decision based on what matters to you, not the pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype confirming a-holes that litter these pages. Law school will be what we make of it.

[jarofsoup]

While helpful in a number of of ways, this forum is occupied by a higher concentration of pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype confirming a-holes than anywhere I've ever seen or been...and I'm from Orange County.

Look, there are certainly some turds out there in terms of law schools, but are we really supposed to believe that the overwhelming majority of schools blow in the monumental way that the typical poster contends? Save yourselves the time of quoting this and responding with the yes that you believe will be a really clever answer. The answer is not yes. There are some legitimately attractive aspects to some lower ranked schools depending on your career goals and personal ideology. In fact, it could be argued that it is literally impossible to properly and honestly adress the merits of attending a school without taking those factors into account.

While crapping all over these schools, usually with no more ground to stand on than the original poster, you are failing to take into account an amazing number of factors. Let's look at just three that you schmucks are constantly forgetting about:

1) some people are not THAT concerned with income. Look at this statement:

If you don't mind doing public interest work in SF (which doesn't make sense given the high COL in the city) than go for it.

Doing public interest work doesn't make sense in a city with a high cost of living? WTF? Believe it or not, some people want to give back and do something to help others. Even if it means sacrificing a bit in terms of lifestyle. Sure, debt needs to be taken into account, but stop assuming that everyone else wants to plan their future with the sole purpose of maximizing their income. In fact, you may want to consider doing the same yourself.

2) not everyone can afford to sit out a year and take courses to improve an LSAT score. I keep reading statements such as "you should absolutely wait a year, improve your LSAT score and apply next cycle." How the hell can so many people assume that any of those things are easy to do? Waiting a year requires finding the means to support yourself during that period, which may seem like no big deal to someone who just went shopping with daddy's black card, but isn't. Also, a substantial improvement in LSAT score is possible, but not all that likely without taking a course, which also needs to be paid for.

3) People do well, both in terms of income and overall happiness, after graduating from schools outside the top-14, top-50, and yes even the top-100 (GASP!). Would a more prestigious name on your degree make things easier? Sure. However, the notion that anybody who graduates from one of these lower ranked schools is perpetually screwed is preposterous.

Original poster, I am also considering Golden Gate with a 158 LSAT and also have some extenuating circumstances regarding GPA that makes me a bit of a crapshoot at schools with higher rankings. I did research and find the public interest aspects of the school pretty intriguing. Do the research and make a decision based on what matters to you, not the pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype confirming a-holes that litter these pages. Law school will be what we make of it.

Talk to some Golden Gate grads. They get jobs, but you are not going to be invited to interviews at any big firms.

I worked with a Golden Gate grad that refereed to it as a degree mill. This did not give me the ambition to apply and with a 157 and 3.25 I have gotten into much better schools already.

This being said it does teach great lawyering skills and has strong alumni ties. It is less theoretical than a school like Hastings and more practical. Yet Hastings is a much much better school.

So it is not being doomed, but be realistic. You can make money, but you are not going to be joeblow hot shot attorney.

[sarahh]

People are saying not to go there not because you will not get a prestigious big law job, but because there is a good chance you will not be able to get any legal job. (And no, people are not saying that no one is successful from there, but that a large portion of the population is not able to find a decent law-related job that allows them to pay their bills.) Do you think it is easy for someone just out of law school to get a public interest job, especially in San Francisco? First, non-profits want people with experience. Second, there are several much better schools in the area and plenty of people from other top schools across the country want to be here. I also think you are at a big disadvantage if you do not speak a second language. People are not pretentious - they are realistic. They don't believe in taking on $150,000 in debt to go to a school that does not provide good job prospects.

[serdog]

Golden Gate student Articling for BigLaw in Vancouver (LinkRemoved) so it possible but unlikely to do well from Golden Gate . Sad part she likely make more as a Articling student then the VAST majority of her classmates ($45,000-$60,000)

[Mick Haller]

Golden Gate student Articling for BigLaw in Vancouver (LinkRemoved) so it possible but unlikely to do well from Golden Gate . Sad part she likely make more as a Articling student then the VAST majority of her classmates ($45,000-$60,000)

According to Martindale-Hubbell, there are ZERO Golden Gate graduates admitted to the British Columbia bar. This person may literally be the first GGU grad to find legal employment in Vancouver.

As for the earlier person suggesting that GGU students can find "low-paying public interest work" in San Francisco rather easily, I can assure you that this statement is patently false.

[red_alertz]

Golden Gate student Articling for BigLaw in Vancouver (LinkRemoved) so it possible but unlikely to do well from Golden Gate . Sad part she likely make more as a Articling student then the VAST majority of her classmates ($45,000-$60,000)

According to Martindale-Hubbell, there are ZERO Golden Gate graduates admitted to the British Columbia bar. This person may literally be the first GGU grad to find legal employment in Vancouver.

As for the earlier person suggesting that GGU students can find "low-paying public interest work" in San Francisco rather easily, I can assure you that this statement is patently false.

evidence? GGU is ABA accredited, meaning it is a GOOD school, along with a solid reputation in the bay area, its grad should have no problem finding PI jobs

[Grizz]

While helpful in a number of of ways, this forum is occupied by a higher concentration of pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype confirming a-holes than anywhere I've ever seen or been...and I'm from Orange County.

Look, there are certainly some turds out there in terms of law schools, but are we really supposed to believe that the overwhelming majority of schools blow in the monumental way that the typical poster contends? Save yourselves the time of quoting this and responding with the yes that you believe will be a really clever answer. The answer is not yes. There are some legitimately attractive aspects to some lower ranked schools depending on your career goals and personal ideology. In fact, it could be argued that it is literally impossible to properly and honestly adress the merits of attending a school without taking those factors into account.

While crapping all over these schools, usually with no more ground to stand on than the original poster, you are failing to take into account an amazing number of factors. Let's look at just three that you schmucks are constantly forgetting about:

1) some people are not THAT concerned with income. Look at this statement: [quote] If you don't mind doing public interest work in SF (which doesn't make sense given the high COL in the city) than go for it.

Doing public interest work doesn't make sense in a city with a high cost of living? WTF? Believe it or not, some people want to give back and do something to help others. Even if it means sacrificing a bit in terms of lifestyle. Sure, debt needs to be taken into account, but stop assuming that everyone else wants to plan their future with the sole purpose of maximizing their income. In fact, you may want to consider doing the same yourself.

2) not everyone can afford to sit out a year and take courses to improve an LSAT score. I keep reading statements such as "you should absolutely wait a year, improve your LSAT score and apply next cycle." How the hell can so many people assume that any of those things are easy to do? Waiting a year requires finding the means to support yourself during that period, which may seem like no big deal to someone who just went shopping with daddy's black card, but isn't. Also, a substantial improvement in LSAT score is possible, but not all that likely without taking a course, which also needs to be paid for.

3) People do well, both in terms of income and overall happiness, after graduating from schools outside the top-14, top-50, and yes even the top-100 (GASP!). Would a more prestigious name on your degree make things easier? Sure. However, the notion that anybody who graduates from one of these lower ranked schools is perpetually screwed is preposterous.

Original poster, I am also considering Golden Gate with a 158 LSAT and also have some extenuating circumstances regarding GPA that makes me a bit of a crapshoot at schools with higher rankings. I did research and find the public interest aspects of the school pretty intriguing. Do the research and make a decision based on what matters to you, not the pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype confirming a-holes that litter these pages. Law school will be what we make of it.[/s][/quote]

LOL --LinkRemoved--

[Grizz]

Golden Gate student Articling for BigLaw in Vancouver (LinkRemoved) so it possible but unlikely to do well from Golden Gate . Sad part she likely make more as a Articling student then the VAST majority of her classmates ($45,000-$60,000)

According to Martindale-Hubbell, there are ZERO Golden Gate graduates admitted to the British Columbia bar. This person may literally be the first GGU grad to find legal employment in Vancouver.

As for the earlier person suggesting that GGU students can find "low-paying public interest work" in San Francisco rather easily, I can assure you that this statement is patently false.

evidence? GGU is ABA accredited, meaning it is a GOOD school, along with a solid reputation in the bay area, its grad should have no problem finding PI jobs

lol ABA accreditation means absolutely nothing

[red_alertz]

is the 2008 market better/worse than it is now?

[Grizz]

is the 2008 market better/worse than it is now?

Much much better.

[Mick Haller]

evidence? GGU is ABA accredited, meaning it is a GOOD school, along with a solid reputation in the bay area, its grad should have no problem finding PI jobs

I have no direct evidence; most of what I have is anecdotal. I don't think there is a "NALP" providing public interest careers data. Here's what I know:

1. even at higher ranked Bay Area schools, the demand for these jobs outstrips supply. PI jobs are desired by ideological people as well as people seeking to use LRAP.

2. most public interest jobs are still publicly financed, and in case nobody noticed, the state of CA is doing terrible. Apparently the solution is to have CHP write enough tickets to get out of the budget crunch. those "ADA jobs" mentioned earlier in this thread? Many CA district attorneys are hiring full-time, UNPAID attorneys.

3. related to #2, many (if not most) of the PI listings I see on my school's careers say something along these lines "While we are happy to accept applications from third-year students, ______(PI org. name)_____ is not hiring staff attorneys at this time." My impression is that there are very few available paid PI position right now.

[red_alertz]

is the 2008 market better/worse than it is now?

Much much better.

could u explain what the data from lawschooltransprancy means? if 08 was worse, doesn't that mean GGU should be much better off now as well? so we can explect better conclusion(whatever that means) from that website?

[aguaman13]

LOL

As I expected, you failed to respond with any substance to any of the points that I made. In fact, you confirmed my point. This forum is full of pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype-confirming a-holes.

[Grizz]

LOL

As I expected, you failed to respond with any substance to any of the points that I made. In fact, you confirmed my point. This forum is full of pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype-confirming a-holes.

Read the link lol. Why do you think people are not reporting salary information? I may be an asshole, but you're an ignorant buffoon.

[red_alertz]

LOL

As I expected, you failed to respond with any substance to any of the points that I made. In fact, you confirmed my point. This forum is full of pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype-confirming a-holes.

Read the link lol. Why do you think people are not reporting salary information? I may be an asshole, but you're an ignorant buffoon.

hey dude, can u explain the data on lawschooltransprancy?

[Mick Haller]

LOL

As I expected, you failed to respond with any substance to any of the points that I made. In fact, you confirmed my point. This forum is full of pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype-confirming a-holes.

Lashing out at the individuals posting in this forum does not alter the reality of the legal job market. It's bad.

[akili]

is the 2008 market better/worse than it is now?

Much much better.

could u explain what the data from lawschooltransprancy means? if 08 was worse, doesn't that mean GGU should be much better off now as well? so we can explect better conclusion(whatever that means) from that website?

2008 was better. So now would be worse.

[romothesavior]

Talk to some Golden Gate grads. They get jobs, but you are not going to be invited to interviews at any big firms.

I worked with a Golden Gate grad that refereed to it as a degree mill. This did not give me the ambition to apply and with a 157 and 3.25 I have gotten into much better schools already.

This being said it does teach great lawyering skills and has strong alumni ties. It is less theoretical than a school like Hastings and more practical. Yet Hastings is a much much better school.

So it is not being doomed, but be realistic. You can make money, but you are not going to be joeblow hot shot attorney.

Yeah but why listen to grads of the school who warn against going there when we've got 0Ls like aguaman to share his baseless assumptions and moronic advice?

News flash: if you are a 0L and you don't have a clue about legal hiring or law school, just shut the fuck up. Nobody cares what you have to say. If you are going to ignore the COUNTLESS number of PRACTICING ATTORNEYS who warn against going to these terrible law schools, then you've made your own bed, and good for you. But don't encourage others to join you in your quest for a life of indebtedness. Just shut up. Period. kthxbai

[red_alertz]

Talk to some Golden Gate grads. They get jobs, but you are not going to be invited to interviews at any big firms.

I worked with a Golden Gate grad that refereed to it as a degree mill. This did not give me the ambition to apply and with a 157 and 3.25 I have gotten into much better schools already.

This being said it does teach great lawyering skills and has strong alumni ties. It is less theoretical than a school like Hastings and more practical. Yet Hastings is a much much better school.

So it is not being doomed, but be realistic. You can make money, but you are not going to be joeblow hot shot attorney.

Yeah but why listen to grads of the school who warn against going there when we've got 0Ls like aguaman to share his baseless assumptions and moronic advice?

News flash: if you are a 0L and you don't have a clue about legal hiring or law school, just shut the fuck up. Nobody cares what you have to say. If you are going to ignore the COUNTLESS number of PRACTICING ATTORNEYS who warn against going to these terrible law schools, then you've made your own bed, and good for you. But don't encourage others to join you in your quest for a life of indebtedness. Just shut up. Period. kthxbai

are you a practicing attorney? if so, what schools would u warn against?

[Grizz]

LOL

As I expected, you failed to respond with any substance to any of the points that I made. In fact, you confirmed my point. This forum is full of pretentious, money-hungry, stereotype-confirming a-holes.

Read the link lol. Why do you think people are not reporting salary information? I may be an asshole, but you're an ignorant buffoon.

hey dude, can u explain the data on lawschooltransprancy?

Simply, 2008 data is overly optimistic for today, and underreporting is a bad sign as it usually indicates underemployment, unemployment, and people not getting legal jobs.

[romothesavior]

are you a practicing attorney? if so, what schools would u warn against?

I'm not a practicing attorney. I'm a law student who knows firsthand how bad things are for current students and recent graduates. I, like many of my classmates, am scared stiff about jobs.

And I don't think it is possible to really list schools that should be avoided. Some should almost always be avoided, and others might be a terrible investment for most people but could make sense if they are free or you have a job lined up. There is a spectrum of possibilities, so what is worth it and what isn't worth it will vary depending on the situation.

For example, I go to WUSTL, and I would not recommend people go here for sticker price. It is just too expensive and you will probably end up with a mid-five figures job, which means you could easily have that debt hanging over you for 25 years. However, for someone interested in practicing in the Midwest who can get a good scholarship, the school can be a good option. So I can't really give you a list of which schools are good options and bad options because like so many things in the law... it depends.

From all accounts, however, GGU is an atrocious school that should be avoided at all costs. Just looking at the LST data should be enough to reach that conclusion.

[jarofsoup]

Talk to some Golden Gate grads. They get jobs, but you are not going to be invited to interviews at any big firms.

I worked with a Golden Gate grad that refereed to it as a degree mill. This did not give me the ambition to apply and with a 157 and 3.25 I have gotten into much better schools already.

This being said it does teach great lawyering skills and has strong alumni ties. It is less theoretical than a school like Hastings and more practical. Yet Hastings is a much much better school.

So it is not being doomed, but be realistic. You can make money, but you are not going to be joeblow hot shot attorney.

Yeah but why listen to grads of the school who warn against going there when we've got 0Ls like aguaman to share his baseless assumptions and moronic advice?

News flash: if you are a 0L and you don't have a clue about legal hiring or law school, just shut the fuck up. Nobody cares what you have to say. If you are going to ignore the COUNTLESS number of PRACTICING ATTORNEYS who warn against going to these terrible law schools, then you've made your own bed, and good for you. But don't encourage others to join you in your quest for a life of indebtedness. Just shut up. Period. kthxbai

are you a practicing attorney? if so, what schools would u warn against?

I am not an attorney, but I have worked for lawyers in a support role. I would not warn against any schools(it is now a banable offense). I would just say make sure you know what you are getting into. GGU is not the worst TTTT, and there are a lot of grads in the SF Bay Area. I did not apply to GGU as a safety because I could not feel comfortable there. I would strongly consider USF or SCU if you can get in. People bash both on here but in SF USF and SCU grads are freaking everywhere.

Most people that went there felt that the school gave them a solid and practical education. It is less theoretical than a school like Hastings and GGU does have a lot of good clinics. One word of advice that I heard was to make sure you get into their Honors Lawyering program if you do attend.

Just understand that the rankings do matter in that the better ranked schools give you a little more flexibility in the market.

That being said avoid anything that is not ABA approved (JFK, Thomas Jefferson, Empire Law).

I am going to take one close to 100k worth of debt for law school(fortunately no undergrad loans). If you have to take on the debt attend a school that you are proud of.

[Borhas]

If GGU places worse than Santa Clara and USF (which I think is probable)

then I would say it's closer to TTTT than underrated

CA, especially Bay Area legal market, is really fucking tough, I wouldn't advise going there...

From all accounts, however, GGU is an atrocious school that should be avoided at all costs. Just looking at the LST data should be enough to reach that conclusion.

Minor quibble:

I think it's probably best to avoid attaching emotive descriptors (like atrocious) to the education itself, I seriously doubt the education itself is really that different from GGU to UCH to UC Berkeley. Becoming a law school professor is so tough that even the not so fancy schools have brilliant faculty. They may have less scholarly impact, but who gives a shit about that? The student bodies may be significantly different, but really, who pays THAT much attention in class for that to be a big deal as far as education? I bet that we study the same cases, in the same way for the most part regardless of school.

W/ that said, even if its education is not atrocious, its employment outcomes seem to be

[Mick Haller]

If you want practical, Hastings has outstanding clinics and a vast selection practitioner-taught courses.

[jenesaislaw]

According to the Class of 2009 data, which we will post today on LST, we can derive salary informationfor 17.6% of Golden Gate's graduates. This is good for the 17th percentile among all ABA-approved law schools.