Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

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

Rutgers-Newark or Seton Hall?

Rutgers
19
76%
Seton Hall
6
24%
 
Total votes: 25

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby keg411 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:31 am

Blindmelon wrote:
arvcondor wrote:Gov. Christie went to Seton Hall, for what it's worth (which is likely nothing).


That counts against SH in a big way.


+1

OP, since I agree that Fordham, BLS and Cardozo are not any better, unless you can get into Columbia/NYU or another top school, take the Rutgers scholarship. Mostly because if you lose that scholarship you are not screwed, whereas if you lose the SHU scholarship, you are.

However, be willing to stay in Jersey because there is much more of a chance you will get a job there then NYC. The other advantage to going to NJ schools is state trial clerkships after graduation. They are not Article III or anything super prestigious, but almost everyone who does one is able to get some type of FT small firm work (not doc review/contract work).

FWIW, like one of the posters above, I also go to the other Rutgers. I do agree that if you think you have a shot at getting your numbers into CLS/NYU/Penn/Cornell range, you should re-take and re-apply. But you are right that it's useless to go to IU-B or UGA or UNC for New York and that Cardozo/BLS/Fordham are not worth the $$$$$.

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

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby get it to x » Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:52 am

I'm a current Rutgers-Newark student and one thing which TLS misses time and time again is that you make your own opportunities. Quite honestly, if you're not attending Columbia or NYU pick the local school where you got the most money from and attend. If you're not top 1/3 or above at Fordham your prospects are exactly the same as anyone at these other schools with the added bonus of high cost of living and tuition.

There are Rutgers graduates at most of NY biglaw firms. In almost all cases, they were at the very top of their class, law review and/or moot court etc. There are a few with "less stellar" credentials who managed to get in, but those are few and far between. There's a presence in NY mid-law as well, but I don't know how pervasive they are. Rutgers is very public interest focused. They routinely place students in most of the local DA's and public defender's offices, US Attorney's offices, etc. No one is going to hand you these jobs. You're going to have to work your butt off, send out hundreds of resumes, network, and be flexible with the results you get. The degree name is not going to open doors for you alone. Only Columbia and NYU do that and even now that's starting to change and those students are experiencing some slight trouble.

I've been here for 2 years and am satisfied that I attended. The expectations are high, getting high grades is very difficult, and there are administrative problems etc. The professors are all highly qualified, some care/some don't about their teaching. I interned with a NY appellate court judge first summer and got a connection through her for a firm job in NY. I know it wasn't a district or appellate court position, but it did the trick and there are a lot of Fordham, Cardozo, etc. students that were still looking for employment and some of them were on law review, moot court etc. I watched near 4.0 students get rejected from firm after firm because, although they can write one hell of an exam answer, either their arrogance or lack of inter-personal skills completely turned off the recruiter. It is what you make it.
Last edited by get it to x on Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NYCbound35
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:48 am

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby NYCbound35 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:55 am

indecision123 wrote:Thanks for all the replies…

I'm still really iffy about both the options. I hear a lot of bashing here but I agree with Justathought in that staying in the region is probably better than leaving it. Especially since I have family ties preventing me from leaving. There are options in NY also of course- Fordham, Cardozo, Brooklyn. But I know people graduating from there also and they're having just as hard a time finding a job. Unless you're going to NYU or Columbia in NY its gonna suck coming out of it. And I'm just not willing to pay sticker for that kind of risk. Let's face it, not everyone is meant for T14. So let me make that clear for anyone posting after this. These are the two options: Rutgers and SHL. And btw, SHL ends up cheaper with the scholarship.

Part of me is leaning toward Rutgers mainly because its a bigger name and seems to have slightly better job prospects in NYC. But SHL has clinics I'm interested in whereas RU is lacking here. Soooooo who knows. Will be visiting both next month.

Anyone on the forum actually graduating from either of these soon or have graduated from here? Would really like some incite from those.

Oh and btw, OP is a SHE



The difference in CoA is negligible. Seton Hall has stipulations on their scholarships, and if you fall below (top 30% I believe, although I may be mistaken), you are royally screwed. Even if you lose the Rutgers scholarship, the downside isn't huge (relatively). Since you seem to be pretty debt averse, Rutgers-Newark seems like the safer pick.

MrAnon
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby MrAnon » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:47 pm

Sure, you're not earning any more out of law school than most people with a UG degree could earn. But the benefits are good, and in 10 years you'll have your loans forgiven and be earning six figures or close to it.


I'm just trying to help people make the best decision for themselves. Comments like this seem to validate that law school is overall a poor life choice, whether or not someone feels it is their calling. Is it also their calling to live in debt for 10 years until the government forgives it?

User avatar
YankeesFan
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby YankeesFan » Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:00 pm

NYCbound35 wrote:The difference in CoA is negligible. Seton Hall has stipulations on their scholarships, and if you fall below (top 30% I believe, although I may be mistaken), you are royally screwed. Even if you lose the Rutgers scholarship, the downside isn't huge (relatively). Since you seem to be pretty debt averse, Rutgers-Newark seems like the safer pick.


Seton Hall's scholly req is top 50%.

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby Wholigan » Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:37 pm

MrAnon wrote:
Sure, you're not earning any more out of law school than most people with a UG degree could earn. But the benefits are good, and in 10 years you'll have your loans forgiven and be earning six figures or close to it.


I'm just trying to help people make the best decision for themselves. Comments like this seem to validate that law school is overall a poor life choice, whether or not someone feels it is their calling. Is it also their calling to live in debt for 10 years until the government forgives it?


So life choices should only be made based on short-term earning ability? Yes, short-term, because the majority going into traditional biglaw aren't going to make it much past mid-level associate in their original firm. By your logic, if someone can earn more out of law school as a whore than in the public defender's office, is that the better "life choice?" Empirical studies show that people view their employment as either a job, career or calling, and utility increases in that order with limited regard for pay. I doubt many biglaw associates would tell you their work is their calling, and some might not even consider it a career. And this is spoken from someone who fully intends to work in biglaw.

Now take my example you called a "poor life choice." By the time you are in your late 30's, your debt is gone, you are earning probably in the top 10-15% of all Americans, and you are working in many cases a 5 day week doing something you presumably like. You sure it's such a terrible choice, dude?

MrAnon
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby MrAnon » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:10 pm

What in the world? 10 years of debt repayment and 3 years of law school is not short term. The smarter person is working on building equity from the get go--not chasing degrees at mills like Seton Hall for the opportunity of spending ten years in debt repayment and hoping that one of these jobs you describe pans out for them in the long run.

User avatar
Justathought
Posts: 977
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:16 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby Justathought » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:14 pm

MrAnon wrote:What in the world? 10 years of debt repayment and 3 years of law school is not short term. The smarter person is working on building equity from the get go--not chasing degrees at mills like Seton Hall for the opportunity of spending ten years in debt repayment and hoping that one of these jobs you describe pans out for them in the long run.


But we all majored in lolcat studies during undergraduate?! It seemed like a good idea at the time!!















Edit: But seriously, maybe people want to be lawyers. I'm a non-trad student entering law school. I made far more at my old job than a biglaw associate, but I hated it. I think if you are driven to be a lawyer this type of plan is viable for a comfortable life.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby keg411 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:44 pm

MrAnon wrote:What in the world? 10 years of debt repayment and 3 years of law school is not short term. The smarter person is working on building equity from the get go--not chasing degrees at mills like Seton Hall for the opportunity of spending ten years in debt repayment and hoping that one of these jobs you describe pans out for them in the long run.


FWIW, the poster above hit the MegaMillions on the law school lottery and is probably in the top 1-3 people in the class, so I doubt the lecture is needed for that person.

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby Wholigan » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:48 pm

MrAnon wrote:What in the world? 10 years of debt repayment and 3 years of law school is not short term. The smarter person is working on building equity from the get go--not chasing degrees at mills like Seton Hall for the opportunity of spending ten years in debt repayment and hoping that one of these jobs you describe pans out for them in the long run.


Your problem is you speak in absolutes too much. Of course law school is a bad choice for some people. But if building equity from the get-go is always TCR then no one should take out any loans to go to UG either. I know plenty of people at my school (and I'm sure the same goes for these two) who want to work for the PD office or in public interest and wouldn't take biglaw if handed to them on a silver platter. Others have advanced degrees in things like biology or computer science and know exactly what they want to do. I don't think being outside of the top 5% at these "mills" will be a problem for them. (Although being below median probably would.) They probably aren't on this site because they don't want opinions on how many V100 interviews they'll get or how high they can transfer. Just because some people mistakenly go to schools of this caliber thinking it's a golden ticket doesn't mean the prospects are grim for anyone who goes without a full scholly and stipend as you would make it seem.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18404
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby bk1 » Sun Feb 20, 2011 12:23 am

Nogameisfair wrote:I have significant connections to RU-N Law and SH Law, and the NJ legal community generally. The truth is RU-N is far more respected in NYC and NJ and will likely land you a job. My caveat, and this is where I agree with BK, is that you shouldn't go to RU-N unless you are willing to practice in NJ. There are several really great firms in NJ, and they all hire from RU-N as far as I know. If you have an open mind about practice in NJ and are debt averse, I think Rutgers is a better option than most, including Fordham.


I agree with all of this. As I said in my post, I'd say Rutgers with cheap tuition/CoL is better than Fordham at sticker.

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

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby get it to x » Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:45 pm

bk1 wrote:
Nogameisfair wrote:I have significant connections to RU-N Law and SH Law, and the NJ legal community generally. The truth is RU-N is far more respected in NYC and NJ and will likely land you a job. My caveat, and this is where I agree with BK, is that you shouldn't go to RU-N unless you are willing to practice in NJ. There are several really great firms in NJ, and they all hire from RU-N as far as I know. If you have an open mind about practice in NJ and are debt averse, I think Rutgers is a better option than most, including Fordham.


I agree with all of this. As I said in my post, I'd say Rutgers with cheap tuition/CoL is better than Fordham at sticker.


Agreed. Fordham is, in my opinion, the biggest risk a prospective student can take. Fordham is notoriously stingy with scholarship and aid money, charges sky-high tuition, and its location includes an almost exorbitant cost of living for a graduate student. Its allure is that it offers a slightly better chance at biglaw than its peers not named Columbia or NYU. It also has a B- curve so if you can't beat top 1/3, more like top 1/4 in this economy, you're stuck with the same employment prospects as an SJU, Brooklyn, or Rutgers grad. High risk, high reward.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby Grizz » Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:57 pm

Wholigan wrote:It seems like she is intent on going to one or the other, so why not offer some realistic yet helpful advice. It seems like all you do here is tell people to drop out, tell people not to go to law school unless they're going to a T10, make assertions in absolute terms about people not being able to get jobs, and bash law schools all over the country that you can't possibly have direct knowledge about. I'm sure she understands by now that being in the top 30% isn't going to get her a six figure job from either school. But FWIW, the state and local governments in NJ are stocked with people from both of these schools, most of whom didn't graduate top 5%. Sure, you're not earning any more out of law school than most people with a UG degree could earn. But the benefits are good, and in 10 years you'll have your loans forgiven and be earning six figures or close to it. I don't think that's the worst prospect in the world if someone sees being a lawyer as a personal calling.

Edit for grammar.


Assumption: those places are hiring. $5 says that they are hiring barely anyone, if at all, ITE.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby Grizz » Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:02 pm

indecision123 wrote:I'm thinking IP or Intl. law. I want to work in NY. I realize only about 30% of students from either school do that, but hey, these are the options I'm working with.



International law? Just no. Seriously OP, there are over 9000 threads on here that explain, in detail, that "international law" is largely a myth. That's the reality of it all.

If you want decent employment prospects that will enable you to pay down your debt, I'd retake.

TLSNYC
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:38 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby TLSNYC » Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:48 pm

YankeesFan wrote:
NYCbound35 wrote:The difference in CoA is negligible. Seton Hall has stipulations on their scholarships, and if you fall below (top 30% I believe, although I may be mistaken), you are royally screwed. Even if you lose the Rutgers scholarship, the downside isn't huge (relatively). Since you seem to be pretty debt averse, Rutgers-Newark seems like the safer pick.


Seton Hall's scholly req is top 50%.


A friend of mine went to Seton Hall and had a half tuition scholarship on top 50% stipulation. Sounds easy enough, but it ain't. They stacked her section with most of the major scholarship winners, and so she lost it. DO NOT GO TO SETON HALL. If you do, make sure there are no stipulations on that scholarship.

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby Wholigan » Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:11 pm

rad law wrote:
Wholigan wrote:It seems like she is intent on going to one or the other, so why not offer some realistic yet helpful advice. It seems like all you do here is tell people to drop out, tell people not to go to law school unless they're going to a T10, make assertions in absolute terms about people not being able to get jobs, and bash law schools all over the country that you can't possibly have direct knowledge about. I'm sure she understands by now that being in the top 30% isn't going to get her a six figure job from either school. But FWIW, the state and local governments in NJ are stocked with people from both of these schools, most of whom didn't graduate top 5%. Sure, you're not earning any more out of law school than most people with a UG degree could earn. But the benefits are good, and in 10 years you'll have your loans forgiven and be earning six figures or close to it. I don't think that's the worst prospect in the world if someone sees being a lawyer as a personal calling.

Edit for grammar.


Assumption: those places are hiring. $5 says that they are hiring barely anyone, if at all, ITE.


Agreed that hiring is down in government, plus there is more competition for those positions. But I know the AG & PD offices have still hired in the past couple years. They still have close to normal attrition rates, since IIRC those people have pensions which aren't affected much by the economy like 401(k)s in the private sector. Besides, by the time OP graduates in 2014, things could change. Maybe we won't have Christie trying to reduce the size of the state government to zero by then. (And hopefully not because he's busy reducing the size of the federal government to zero.) Plus, as one of my classmates pointed out above, if you don't have anything lined up by 3L, you can buy another year by doing a state trial level clerkship for a year. People get small firm jobs from there all the time, and to a lesser extent, government jobs. I even know one person who got into biglaw directly from that type of clerkship ITE, and another who bought two years by going state trial level--> appellate level--> mid-sized firm. Like I said, things are definitely not rosy, but maybe not as grim as some people who I assume are not even in this region want to portray.
Last edited by Wholigan on Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MrAnon
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby MrAnon » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:20 pm

those people have pensions which aren't affected much by the economy


Pick up a newspaper. Especially a NJ newspaper.

another who bought two years by going state trial level


So instead of earnestly entering the workforce 3 years too late, let's do it 5 years too late?

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Rutgers-Newark v. Seton Hall

Postby Wholigan » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:43 pm

MrAnon wrote:
those people have pensions which aren't affected much by the economy


Pick up a newspaper. Especially a NJ newspaper.


I'm not going to waste much effort debating you unless you bring something substantive to the table. The pension funds are absolutely affected by the economy. The defined benefits that state workers grandfathered into the old system get have not been affected. If you want to show everyone how intelligent you are, which is all you seem to want to do here, why don't you back it up with some actual substance?

MrAnon wrote:
another who bought two years by going state trial level


So instead of earnestly entering the workforce 3 years too late, let's do it 5 years too late?


You know what, dude, you're right. Clerking is not part of the workforce, is it? Why even do a Federal clerkship if given the opportunity. Why do SCOTUS? Suckers... what do they make, $60k a year? That's a pretty terrible "life choice," isn't it? You were too busy parsing your quote snippets to realize I didn't say that clerking at the trial level is a good career goal. It's an added safety net if other things don't work out that is somewhat unique to NJ.

edited for proper quotes




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kitlena and 5 guests