Help Choosing a school and why! Forum

[czelede]

Also, OP, FWIW I have a GPA around yours and pulled RD acceptances from both Penn and Berkeley with a 177. You CAN overcome your GPA.

[niederbomb]

Not to hijack the thread, but I have a question that might benefit the OP, too.

Would a 165/170/172 (for example) really outperform a 165/170 for MVPCCN by that much? I'm sure law schools are quite aware of score bands.

They're also quite aware of the fact that they only have to report the highest score to the ABA/USNWR.

Ya I think at this point I won't really be hurt much by dropping a point or two and could see significant gains with 2/3 point increase..

I think a lot of schools are mostly concerned with the top score and if you have a close cluster it should act as a defense mechanism again a fluke or cheating...they'll know you're legit.

Also, if you have a low score (with addendum)/high score/slightly higher score, it would make sense for schools that average to average only the top two. At least I hope that's how it works.

[TheSteelKid]

Have you visited WUSTL or UIUC? I would do that before depositing, though you are cutting it damn close (at least with WUSTL. I don't know when UIUC's deadline is). WUSTL seems like it would be a more enjoyable place to spend 3 years, IMO.

Ive already made the WUSTL deposit that is refundable by May 1st.

Illinois is due at end of April.

I haven't visited but am pretty darn confident I'll like St. Louis more than Urbana Champaign....I like real cities with legitimate diversity.

I do love golf and I know Illinois has a course...but during these three years of my life I'd rather be in city, all things considered.

WUSTL's campus isn't in downtown St. Louis. Being around the WUSTL campus definitely feels like you're in a college town (albeit a decent sized one) rather than being in a metropolis. However it is only a 15 minute drive to downtown St. Louis itself.

Do you go to Wash U or have you just visited? I forgot that it was in the Suburbs but being only 15 minutes away is pretty nice...a potential best of both world scenario.

A girl I know goes to Wash U and seems to enjoy the campus and the people but even though she has a 1L summer job she seems pessimistic about the hiring environment. Romothesavior, a frequent poster here, is also at Wash U and is optimistic about jobs right now for 1L's as long as you do well and work hard on your job search. Interesting conflict of opinions...

[TheSteelKid]

Also, OP, FWIW I have a GPA around yours and pulled RD acceptances from both Penn and Berkeley with a 177. You CAN overcome your GPA.

Ya if I received a 177 I would find a way to cajole my way into harvard...but Penn and Berkeley ain't bad either lady!

[cubswin]

Have you visited WUSTL or UIUC? I would do that before depositing, though you are cutting it damn close (at least with WUSTL. I don't know when UIUC's deadline is). WUSTL seems like it would be a more enjoyable place to spend 3 years, IMO.

Ive already made the WUSTL deposit that is refundable by May 1st.

Illinois is due at end of April.

I haven't visited but am pretty darn confident I'll like St. Louis more than Urbana Champaign....I like real cities with legitimate diversity.

I do love golf and I know Illinois has a course...but during these three years of my life I'd rather be in city, all things considered.

WUSTL's campus isn't in downtown St. Louis. Being around the WUSTL campus definitely feels like you're in a college town (albeit a decent sized one) rather than being in a metropolis. However it is only a 15 minute drive to downtown St. Louis itself.

This is true, but there really isn't anything interesting in downtown STL anyway. Most of the good bars are in neighborhoods (I suppose this tells you what I consider "interesting"), and you're near some pretty decent areas at WUSTL.

It's definitely not a walker's city though, or even a city where public transportation is a viable option. That was one of the biggest turn-offs for me about WUSTL: it seems like you pretty much have to drive to school.

[TheSteelKid]

Not to hijack the thread, but I have a question that might benefit the OP, too.

Would a 165/170/172 (for example) really outperform a 165/170 for MVPCCN by that much? I'm sure law schools are quite aware of score bands.

They're also quite aware of the fact that they only have to report the highest score to the ABA/USNWR.

Ya I think at this point I won't really be hurt much by dropping a point or two and could see significant gains with 2/3 point increase..

I think a lot of schools are mostly concerned with the top score and if you have a close cluster it should act as a defense mechanism again a fluke or cheating...they'll know you're legit.

Also, if you have a low score (with addendum)/high score/slightly higher score, it would make sense for schools that average to average only the top two. At least I hope that's how it works.

Yes that sounds very reasonable considering you can just claim test day nerves got you on the first try. Regardless I'm kind of addicted to trying to do better on the LSAT (sad) but as sad as that is, it could pay off in spades.

[TheSteelKid]

Have you visited WUSTL or UIUC? I would do that before depositing, though you are cutting it damn close (at least with WUSTL. I don't know when UIUC's deadline is). WUSTL seems like it would be a more enjoyable place to spend 3 years, IMO.

Ive already made the WUSTL deposit that is refundable by May 1st.

Illinois is due at end of April.

I haven't visited but am pretty darn confident I'll like St. Louis more than Urbana Champaign....I like real cities with legitimate diversity.

I do love golf and I know Illinois has a course...but during these three years of my life I'd rather be in city, all things considered.

WUSTL's campus isn't in downtown St. Louis. Being around the WUSTL campus definitely feels like you're in a college town (albeit a decent sized one) rather than being in a metropolis. However it is only a 15 minute drive to downtown St. Louis itself.

This is true, but there really isn't anything interesting in downtown STL anyway. Most of the good bars are in neighborhoods (I suppose this tells you what I consider "interesting"), and you're near some pretty decent areas at WUSTL.

It's definitely not a walker's city though, or even a city where public transportation is a viable option. That was one of the biggest turn-offs for me about WUSTL: it seems like you pretty much have to drive to school.

I believe I've read that you can make it at WUSTL without a car...but at any rate I don't imagine Illinois would be an appreciably better walking town or much easier to get through without a car...

[bk1]

Do you go to Wash U or have you just visited? I forgot that it was in the Suburbs but being only 15 minutes away is pretty nice...a potential best of both world scenario.

A girl I know goes to Wash U and seems to enjoy the campus and the people but even though she has a 1L summer job she seems pessimistic about the hiring environment. Romothesavior, a frequent poster here, is also at Wash U and is optimistic about jobs right now for 1L's as long as you do well and work hard on your job search. Interesting conflict of opinions...

I visited. But I'd hazard that because of school you probably won't be going downtown too often, but it is a nice option. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think it was in a downtown area like NU is.

As for the difference of opinion, it may have to do with managed expectations. If the girl you knew was paying sticker and trying to get to Chicago or back home (wherever that may be for her) then I could see her being pessimistic. However with manageable debt and a realistic estimation that you may be placed in the midwest generally (not necessarily Chicago), that you probably won't get biglaw, and that you will need to hustle for a job then I think WUSTL is a fantastic school.

[bk1]

I believe I've read that you can make it at WUSTL without a car...but at any rate I don't imagine Illinois would be an appreciably better walking town or much easier to get through without a car...

You can, but I don't see why you'd want to forgo a car unless you really couldn't afford it.

[alumniguy]

Im choosing to study law as a straight up career move. I know a lot of law work is boring, and some will be interesting. But I think I'll be good at my job.

As far at the "bimodal distribution of salaries for entry level lawyers", are you referring to private firms verus gov't jobs and public interest?

Thanks.

Bimodal refers to the starting salaries being clustered around $160k and around $50k with only a very small amount of jobs paying salaries in between the two peaks.

Source: http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

Yes, this is what I was discussing. Specifically, there appears to be this general idea that being a lawyer automatically leads to a nice comfortable life. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS JUST NOT THE CASE ANYMORE! Yes, some people will do tremendously well, but many lawyers end up in dead-end legal jobs and will probably opt out of the legal profession all together relatively early into their careers. This is especially true given that most law students simply have no idea what it means to actually practice law, let alone practice law in biglaw (I consider myself part of this group back in the day). Most jobs you have a good sense of what a career will be like (e.g., doctors, nurses, sales, etc.), but with law you don't really know what the job will look like until you are there.

There are just too many lawyers in the U.S., that is the real crux of the problem.

* * *

After thinking more about it, I don't think WUSTL or Illinois is a bad idea with such great scholarships. They are both great schools and you'll get a great education. Just realize that there are opportunity costs to going to law school. You will hopefully end up getting a good job straight out of law school, but if you don't the consequences can be dire given the debt load that most law students must take on.

Yes I know that this is the issue, it's like gambling. 10/15 k a year at a pretty good school versus 45 k at a very good school...play it safe or go for broke? It really is a gamble...but a gamble that has increasing odds commensurate with hard work and achievement. I know I will have regrets either way and the competitor in me is just searching for the best option, ya dig? The search continues though...

It really depends on what you want to do man. If you are looking at ultimate prestige and want the opportunity of a more prestigious career (i.e., Art. III clerking, law professor one day, etc.) then the T-14 at $45k a year may be a better long term option. However, you're potentially risking a lot if things don't work as planned.

For me, I would take the 10/15k year 20s school because there is a huge difference between 45k and 150k in debt. If you do well, you'll get to biglaw from the 20s school. If not, then you're only 45k in debt.

Also, the hard work statement is a bit of a fallacy. Everyone works hard in law school - especially at schools in the 20s (and the kids at the T-14 are usually a notch better at exam taking so you're dealing with that extra burden). There is simply no way to accurately gauge how well you'll do in law school. My experience taught me that some people always did well (the Law Review kids), a lot of people did well most of the time (consistent mix of A-/B+), but knowing when you got the A- versus the B+ or B, was damn near impossible to guess. It had very little to do with the amount of work you put and more to do with a whole host of other factors. Yes, you can probably accurately guess whether you'll be in the top 50 percent of your class...but the difference between being top 25 and top 40 is just too difficult to accurately predict - and at a 20s school, that is likely the different between biglaw and not.

[TheSteelKid]

Bimodal refers to the starting salaries being clustered around $160k and around $50k with only a very small amount of jobs paying salaries in between the two peaks.

Source: http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib[/quote]

Yes, this is what I was discussing. Specifically, there appears to be this general idea that being a lawyer automatically leads to a nice comfortable life. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS JUST NOT THE CASE ANYMORE! Yes, some people will do tremendously well, but many lawyers end up in dead-end legal jobs and will probably opt out of the legal profession all together relatively early into their careers. This is especially true given that most law students simply have no idea what it means to actually practice law, let alone practice law in biglaw (I consider myself part of this group back in the day). Most jobs you have a good sense of what a career will be like (e.g., doctors, nurses, sales, etc.), but with law you don't really know what the job will look like until you are there.

There are just too many lawyers in the U.S., that is the real crux of the problem.

* * *

After thinking more about it, I don't think WUSTL or Illinois is a bad idea with such great scholarships. They are both great schools and you'll get a great education. Just realize that there are opportunity costs to going to law school. You will hopefully end up getting a good job straight out of law school, but if you don't the consequences can be dire given the debt load that most law students must take on.[/quote]



Yes I know that this is the issue, it's like gambling. 10/15 k a year at a pretty good school versus 45 k at a very good school...play it safe or go for broke? It really is a gamble...but a gamble that has increasing odds commensurate with hard work and achievement. I know I will have regrets either way and the competitor in me is just searching for the best option, ya dig? The search continues though...[/quote]


It really depends on what you want to do man. If you are looking at ultimate prestige and want the opportunity of a more prestigious career (i.e., Art. III clerking, law professor one day, etc.) then the T-14 at $45k a year may be a better long term option. However, you're potentially risking a lot if things don't work as planned.

For me, I would take the 10/15k year 20s school because there is a huge difference between 45k and 150k in debt. If you do well, you'll get to biglaw from the 20s school. If not, then you're only 45k in debt.

Also, the hard work statement is a bit of a fallacy. Everyone works hard in law school - especially at schools in the 20s (and the kids at the T-14 are usually a notch better at exam taking so you're dealing with that extra burden). There is simply no way to accurately gauge how well you'll do in law school. My experience taught me that some people always did well (the Law Review kids), a lot of people did well most of the time (consistent mix of A-/B+), but knowing when you got the A- versus the B+ or B, was damn near impossible to guess. It had very little to do with the amount of work you put and more to do with a whole host of other factors. Yes, you can probably accurately guess whether you'll be in the top 50 percent of your class...but the difference between being top 25 and top 40 is just too difficult to accurately predict - and at a 20s school, that is likely the different between biglaw and not.[/quote]


I feel I'm a pretty good tester taker and am not intimidated by other students at T-20 or T-14 schools, though I know that they're bright and motivated. But sense we're talking about predictability and payoffs, it seems like top half at a T-14 is more of a lock than top 20% at Wash U/Illinois....

[sanetruth]

I can't believe I'm saying this again, but OP, WHEN did you apply? For splitters like you, getting apps in early makes ALL the difference. If you're reporting being locked out of T14 right now after sending out apps in January, then YES reapply September 1st, you'll have MUCH different (see: better) results. And that goes without even retaking the LSAT.

However, if these are your results from sending out apps in September, then you won't see different results without a higher LSAT score.

ALSO, I think you're in kind of a precarious situation. This is because a) the difference between a 170 and a 171+ is huge BUT b) the difference between a 171 and 176 (for a SPLITTER) is negligible. When you combine those things together with your scores (meaning: the average of a 170 and a 171 is 170.5...if you catch my drift), I think you'd be hard-pressed to find different results unless you broke 176.

[TheSteelKid]

I can't believe i'm saying this again, but OP, WHEN did you apply? For splitters like you, getting apps in early makes ALL the difference. If you're reporting being locked out of T14 right now after sending out apps in January, then YES reapply September 1st, you'll have MUCH different (see: better) results. And that goes without even retaking the LSAT.

However, if these are your results from sending out apps in September, then you won't see different results without a higher LSAT score.

ALSO, I think you're in kind of a precarious situation. This is because a) the difference between a 170 and a 171+ is huge BUT b) the difference between a 171 and 176 is negligible. When you combine those things together with your scores (meaning: the average of a 170 and a 171 is 170.5...if you catch my drift), I think you'd be hard-pressed to find different results unless you broke 176.

Very interesting analysis. I sent in all of my application forms in November and December, but they weren't finished until January because I asked schools to wait for my December LSAT score which was released just after New Years. That said, I still haven't heard back from Gtown, Cornell and USC.

So..I think having everything in and completed Sept. 1st will help..which is when I will begin the ED madness.

Also, its funny that the 171 is such a big deal because by the end of the LSAT I had 5 minutes left on my last section and didn't even finish the last question b/c my head was spinning and it was slightly tricky with a spinning head! I decided to go back and check my other answers to relieve some tension but could have easily gotten it and a 171! Oh well...pretty ridiculous though..

[alumniguy]

I feel I'm a pretty good tester taker and am not intimidated by other students at T-20 or T-14 schools, though I know that they're bright and motivated. But sense we're talking about predictability and payoffs, it seems like top half at a T-14 is more of a lock than top 20% at Wash U/Illinois....

I'd guess they are probably fairly even in this economy. It certainly depends on the school though (e.g., I'd rather be top 20 at WUSTL than top 50 at Georgetown).

I generally advocate going to a t-14 if you get in because long-term career wise I think it opens up more doors (if you are really willing to work your ass of for your entire career). However, going to law school at a 20s school for 15k a year is a great deal as well. And for the average person who doesn't have desires of prestigious government posts and/or law professor gigs, and simply want a nice paying job that will eventually become a 9-5 type gig later on in his/her career, a 20s school will get you to most of the same positions as the t-14.

[TheSteelKid]

I feel I'm a pretty good tester taker and am not intimidated by other students at T-20 or T-14 schools, though I know that they're bright and motivated. But sense we're talking about predictability and payoffs, it seems like top half at a T-14 is more of a lock than top 20% at Wash U/Illinois....

I'd guess they are probably fairly even in this economy. It certainly depends on the school though (e.g., I'd rather be top 20 at WUSTL than top 50 at Georgetown).

I generally advocate going to a t-14 if you get in because long-term career wise I think it opens up more doors (if you are really willing to work your ass of for your entire career). However, going to law school at a 20s school for 15k a year is a great deal as well. And for the average person who doesn't have desires of prestigious government posts and/or law professor gigs, and simply want a nice paying job that will eventually become a 9-5 type gig later on in his/her career, a 20s school will get you to most of the same positions as the t-14.

I'm not sure how prestigious I really want to go, but I want to be satisfied with the kind of work I'm doing, as well as respected and well paid. I know that the two very different options can lead to the same result but really I'm just trying to give myself the option to even choose! As of now that won't even let me pay the 45k/year to pursue my ambitions!

[charliebrownwn]

Can anyone speak from experience about passing on one cycle and re-applying, and how it worked out for them?

[TheSteelKid]

Can anyone speak from experience about passing on one cycle and re-applying, and how it worked out for them?

Agreed can anyone offer any stories here? I'm considering withdrawing from GW and reapplying to see if I can get some $, but it won't really matter if I'm also applying ED to UVA/Mich/NU/Penn/GTown

[bk1]

Can anyone speak from experience about passing on one cycle and re-applying, and how it worked out for them?

Agreed can anyone offer any stories here? I'm considering withdrawing from GW and reapplying to see if I can get some $, but it won't really matter if I'm also applying ED to UVA/Mich/NU/Penn/GTown

I'm a reapplicant.

Last cycle I didn't know much about law school admissions or employment prospects or the LSAT. I took the December 2010 LSAT with minimal studying and scored a 166. Because I had to wait to get my score I sent out my apps on January 31. I ended up waitlisted at some T1's with half ride to T2's. I found TLS while trying to choose between my bad offers, realized (after having it forced down my throat) that I should retake/reapply. I withdrew my seat deposit in the beginning of April and started studying the LSAT again. I spent an average of 6 days a week studying for 2 months and ended up with a low 170's score in June (I burned out hard as I had been PTing in the high 170's but barely taking breaks and taking 2, sometimes 3, PT's a day, 5 days a week, eventually took its toll and caused me to drop 5 pts on my actual LSAT).

I found a job at the beginning of the summer that knew I was only going to stay for a year (I'm a paper pusher in at a small firm) and also got offered a job as an LSAT tutor which was ridiculously easy to get but I loathed it. I spent the summer working on my statements and getting feedback here. This cycle I sent out all my apps in September and am looking at T14 waitlists and 2/3 rides to WUSTL/GW. My offers are erratic because I am a 3.0-/170+/URM. I should have ED'ed to NU but I kind of counted myself out because only 12% of their incoming class has only 1 year of work experience. Looking back I realize this was pretty foolish to not ED to NU with above median LSAT, URM, and 1 year work exp.

If you had asked me a year ago what I was going to do, I would have ardently told you that I was going to spend the entire summer reading E&E's, kick ass my first year at a tier 2, and transfer to the T14. Oh how wrong I was and I am definitely glad I retook/reapplied.

This isn't to say this is the case for everybody who retakes/reapplies, but I definitely feel it helped me (I knew that I had barely studied for my first LSAT). Is there a chance that you end up in the same spot you are now? Sure, but is spending 1 year of your life to see if you can do better worth it? Definitely.

EDIT: Final thing. I have actually considered waiting out another year and ED'ing to NU next cycle and I know several people who have T14 offers who are considering retaking and reapplying.

[TheSteelKid]

Edit

[TheSteelKid]

Im choosing to study law as a straight up career move. I know a lot of law work is boring, and some will be interesting. But I think I'll be good at my job.

As far at the "bimodal distribution of salaries for entry level lawyers", are you referring to private firms verus gov't jobs and public interest?

Thanks.

Yes, this is what I was discussing. Specifically, there appears to be this general idea that being a lawyer automatically leads to a nice comfortable life. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS JUST NOT THE CASE ANYMORE! Yes, some people will do tremendously well, but many lawyers end up in dead-end legal jobs and will probably opt out of the legal profession all together relatively early into their careers. This is especially true given that most law students simply have no idea what it means to actually practice law, let alone practice law in biglaw (I consider myself part of this group back in the day). Most jobs you have a good sense of what a career will be like (e.g., doctors, nurses, sales, etc.), but with law you don't really know what the job will look like until you are there.

There are just too many lawyers in the U.S., that is the real crux of the problem.

* * *

After thinking more about it, I don't think WUSTL or Illinois is a bad idea with such great scholarships. They are both great schools and you'll get a great education. Just realize that there are opportunity costs to going to law school. You will hopefully end up getting a good job straight out of law school, but if you don't the consequences can be dire given the debt load that most law students must take on.

Yes I know that this is the issue, it's like gambling. 10/15 k a year at a pretty good school versus 45 k at a very good school...play it safe or go for broke? It really is a gamble...but a gamble that has increasing odds commensurate with hard work and achievement. I know I will have regrets either way and the competitor in me is just searching for the best option, ya dig? The search continues though...

It really depends on what you want to do man. If you are looking at ultimate prestige and want the opportunity of a more prestigious career (i.e., Art. III clerking, law professor one day, etc.) then the T-14 at $45k a year may be a better long term option. However, you're potentially risking a lot if things don't work as planned.

For me, I would take the 10/15k year 20s school because there is a huge difference between 45k and 150k in debt. If you do well, you'll get to biglaw from the 20s school. If not, then you're only 45k in debt.

Also, the hard work statement is a bit of a fallacy. Everyone works hard in law school - especially at schools in the 20s (and the kids at the T-14 are usually a notch better at exam taking so you're dealing with that extra burden). There is simply no way to accurately gauge how well you'll do in law school. My experience taught me that some people always did well (the Law Review kids), a lot of people did well most of the time (consistent mix of A-/B+), but knowing when you got the A- versus the B+ or B, was damn near impossible to guess. It had very little to do with the amount of work you put and more to do with a whole host of other factors. Yes, you can probably accurately guess whether you'll be in the top 50 percent of your class...but the difference between being top 25 and top 40 is just too difficult to accurately predict - and at a 20s school, that is likely the different between biglaw and not.

Hey I really appreciate your insight into my situation. It's refreshing to hear some knowledge from an alumni and a lawyer with significant work experience.

I have a tough decision in front of me, just like many other aspiring law students do. Big scholarship at a mid-west school versus all the prestige and debt of a t-14 school. Having all that debt does scare the shit out of me, especially if debt accumulates while I'm still a student .

Still though it's nice to be able to hear different opinions on the matter and I thank you for yours.