Suffolk or William Mitchell??

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
DCnative
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:17 am

bearsfan1 wrote:
wizard wrote:First of all, I would like to know the qualifications of the people who are advising you against going to law school. Did they hear from a cousin of a friend who read third tier reality that you are going to melt if you go to one of these schools. These people are all negative, pessimistic PUSSIES. They probably go to Touro and have nothing better to do than troll these forums talking shit about law schools outside the T14. These people can talk shit from their keyboard from their mommy's basement but they clearly have no fucking clue what the practice of law is about.
I think that both of these school's place equally well in their respective markets. In Boston you are not going to be competing with Harvard and BU so much because these people are trying to get to NYC. Suffolk will trump New England, Western New England and Maine every day, all day in Boston. BC grads are going for firm jobs for the most part but they as well as Northeastern will be the major competition. Suffolk alums comprise 80% of DA offices and judges in the state of Massachusetts as well as many elected officials on Beacon Hill and other people in government. There are those Suffolk grads who are unemployed and attempting to hang their own shingle etc. But Suffolk has one of the largest classes of all law schools, something like 600 people in each class between day and evening division. Thus, if the 200 people in the bottom of the class are struggling to get that first job there are still 200 people who have legal employment. If you are top 15% at Suffolk biglaw is a real possibility also. I am a former paralegal for a major firm and I know what I'm talking about. I considered WM too but in the end Boston is a much cooler city with a lot more industry and the ocean nearby. I consider everything between Cali and Boston a "fly over" state.

Also, Scholarship money is pointless these days. Lets say you go to Suffolk which costs $40,000 per year and you get a 20,000 per year scholarship. Well, with cost of living you are paying 45,000 per year. At the end of three years the loan payments for 135000 in loans are not going to be any more manageable than those for 195000 per year. Hence, you will be using IBR either way and getting loan forgiveness after 25 years. So, live it up! Start your career like a true lawyer.... Get yours and stick the bill to uncle sam. It's the new American way. The only thing better than this is sticking the bill to uncle sam and then suing the city you live in on a daily basis for MBTA accidents and slip and falls on city sidewalks etc. Then you are fucking the government so that you can make a career of fucking the government.


What the fuck. You think it's bad that there are people on here in their mommy's basement trying to stop a person from making a terrible life choice? But it's so much better that you're in the corner of your trailer/mobile meth lab telling a guy to take out an assload of loans because it's the "American way"? All Harvard and BU grads are trying to get to NYC? If somebody goes to BOSTON University, wouldn't that lead one to believe that they would eventually want to end up in Boston? If somebody got into BU and wants to eventually work in NYC, why not go to St. John's or fucking Fordham? "Suffolk will trump New England and Maine". Get the fuck out of here. I guess we're forgetting about UConn, MAINE, Northeastern, etc, etc, etc, etc, fucking Syracuse grads go to NE for god's sake. "Suffolk will trump New England", lol I still can't believe I read that. You said that if there's "200 people struggling to get that first job, but there are 200 with legal employment". You also said that the class size was 600. Where's the other 200? Oh, let me guess, they dropped out or were kicked out after their 1L? So out of those who go to Suffolk, only 1/3 of them will eventually obtain legal employment. But 15% of that 33% has a good shot at big law. BIGLAW. Laugh you right out of the room wizard. I'm not even gonna comment. But just because a lawfirm office is located in a building larger than your mobile meth lab does not make that law firm apart of BIGLAW. "Boston is a much cooler city with alot more industry and the ocean nearby".- Definitely listen to this advice OP, having an ocean nearby is crucial to obtaining employment with a law firm. With regards to your idea of scholarships, you're actually the reason our country's going to shit. PUSSIES like you would rather live off the government and taxpayer's money than make your own way in life. Let me guess, you're one of those people who goes to WALMART dressed up in a suit only to whip out food stamps to buy your steak, chicken, and lobster?


Bearsfan1, you are a disgrace to the legal community. Grow up. Seriously. Can't believe you're that riled up over a post in a FORUM.

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:17 am

In.

DCnative
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:18 am

Lol where are you "in"?

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby paratactical » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:18 am

wizard wrote:First of all, I would like to know the qualifications of the people who are advising you against going to law school. Did they hear from a cousin of a friend who read third tier reality that you are going to melt if you go to one of these schools. These people are all negative, pessimistic PUSSIES. They probably go to Touro and have nothing better to do than troll these forums talking shit about law schools outside the T14. These people can talk shit from their keyboard from their mommy's basement but they clearly have no fucking clue what the practice of law is about.
I think that both of these school's place equally well in their respective markets. In Boston you are not going to be competing with Harvard and BU so much because these people are trying to get to NYC. Suffolk will trump New England, Western New England and Maine every day, all day in Boston. BC grads are going for firm jobs for the most part but they as well as Northeastern will be the major competition. Suffolk alums comprise 80% of DA offices and judges in the state of Massachusetts as well as many elected officials on Beacon Hill and other people in government. There are those Suffolk grads who are unemployed and attempting to hang their own shingle etc. But Suffolk has one of the largest classes of all law schools, something like 600 people in each class between day and evening division. Thus, if the 200 people in the bottom of the class are struggling to get that first job there are still 200 people who have legal employment. If you are top 15% at Suffolk biglaw is a real possibility also. I am a former paralegal for a major firm and I know what I'm talking about. I considered WM too but in the end Boston is a much cooler city with a lot more industry and the ocean nearby. I consider everything between Cali and Boston a "fly over" state.

Also, Scholarship money is pointless these days. Lets say you go to Suffolk which costs $40,000 per year and you get a 20,000 per year scholarship. Well, with cost of living you are paying 45,000 per year. At the end of three years the loan payments for 135000 in loans are not going to be any more manageable than those for 195000 per year. Hence, you will be using IBR either way and getting loan forgiveness after 25 years. So, live it up! Start your career like a true lawyer.... Get yours and stick the bill to uncle sam. It's the new American way. The only thing better than this is sticking the bill to uncle sam and then suing the city you live in on a daily basis for MBTA accidents and slip and falls on city sidewalks etc. Then you are fucking the government so that you can make a career of fucking the government.

Image

Where is reasonable_man when you need him?

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby northwood » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:20 am

if you must stay in boston re consider suffolk. If you are okay with the twin cities- maybe william and mitchell. make sure to visit it and spend a few days before you sign. However, if you must stay in boston- maybe there is another option? Dont want to be rude, but Boston and NYC region is saturated with schools- so you will be going against a lot of schools.- so suffolk might not get you the results you want. best of luck

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:21 am

DCnative wrote:Lol where are you "in"?

IBMT** (mega-thread)

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby Blindmelon » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:26 am

Be wary of Suffolk. Top of the class at Suffolk will do well for itself (think top 5% + IP). Top 5 or so students can get into firms like WH/GP, but their summer classes are overwhelmingly BC/BU and a lot more Harvard then you would think (Ropes/Wilmer/GP's summer classes are typically 1/3rd Harvard each). Local gov/PI jobs are also being crowded with BU/BC as both of these schools are having trouble placing anywhere ITE -

Also - whoever said Suffolk doesn't compete with BU is sorely mistaken. 50% of BU and BC's class stay in Boston - only about 25% of each go to NYC.

DCnative
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:33 am

Thanks blindmelon! That's actually really helpful advice, because while I know it's possible to make it from Suffolk, and many of their grads do very well for themselves, I haven't been able to get any true stats on where you need to sit in the class to do that. You're definitely right - a lot of Harvard/BU/BC grads go elsewhere, but a lot also stay in the area. That's the same for most any law school, really. That's definitely the reason why this is such a difficult decision for me, because I know that wherever I end up going, I'll likely be there for a while, unless I am successful at transfering. Decisions, decisions. It's looking like WM may be in the lead now.

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:38 am

DCnative wrote:Thanks blindmelon! That's actually really helpful advice, because while I know it's possible to make it from Suffolk, and many of their grads do very well for themselves, I haven't been able to get any true stats on where you need to sit in the class to do that. You're definitely right - a lot of Harvard/BU/BC grads go elsewhere, but a lot also stay in the area. That's the same for most any law school, really. That's definitely the reason why this is such a difficult decision for me, because I know that wherever I end up going, I'll likely be there for a while, unless I am successful at transfering. Decisions, decisions. It's looking like WM may be in the lead now.

Dude why would you go to either of these schools. You're crazy.

JOThompson
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby JOThompson » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:44 am

I can't recommend either of these schools ITE. However, if you simply want the best shot at a job, then go to WM. It is fairly well respected in the Twin Cities, despite the low ranking. It also places better in its market than Suffolk will in its backyard.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby vanwinkle » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:45 am

When I first arrived in Boston last August, I went out to dinner with my new classmates. We were talking, and suddenly our waitress goes, "Law school, huh? I just graduated from law school." Naturally we asked where from. "Suffolk."

Keep in mind that her waitressing job makes her one of the grads reported as "employed after graduation". Seriously. They count non-legal employment and part-time employment, so no matter what her status at that restaurant, she was someone they'd include in their reported employment numbers.

I'm not meaning to rag on individual people. She seemed smart and personable and conversational. She wasn't at all bitter, even though she expressed some regret over not finding real legal work with her degree. My first impression was that this was not someone who was holding themselves back.

There are plenty of people like this from T4 schools right now, especially ITE. There just are not enough jobs to go around, and the nature of the legal market is to be biased in favor of more prestigious schools. Any school in this tier is hurting right now, or more specifically, its students are hurting. They're suffering from a lack of jobs that they can be seriously considered for, given their school and how many people from better local schools are job-hunting just as desperately right now.

If law school is your dream, you really need to either improve your LSAT and get into better schools, or wait a couple years so that you're graduating into a better economy. Now is a terrible time to go, because regardless of your own personal drive or abilities, you will be held back by where and when you're going to school, possibly so much that you will never get a legal job.

DCnative
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:04 am

I would normally be inclined to agree with you, vanwinkle, but a lot of these law school grads do not do their research beforehand. I know the employment statistics are stilted, etc. I know it might take me a while, but I also have experience in the field/market. While I will be far from the only one in law school with real world legal experience, you can't deny that those who do have it will be a bit more knowledgeable about the field itself and know some ins and outs about what future employers are looking for, not to mention practical skills that you don't always learn in law school itself to make that happen.

Your friend the waitress may end up being an incredibly successful attorney one day, but just hasn't found her market yet. Looking at case-by-case examples gives you an idea of what you can expect, but it's by no means the only outcome of a school like that. There are still plenty of people who don't graduate in the top of their class at lower tier law schools and wind up just fine in the end - just not right off the bat.

I've done the whole "take two years off" thing, tried improving my LSAT score, but I know I'm capable of legal work because I've done it for the past two years. There's no guarantee the market will be better in a couple years, and truthfully, if I waited to apply AGAIN I would be shortchanging myself by letting grass grow under my feet. Upward direction is always good, no matter how you cut it. There are plenty of ways to find success out of law school if you need a boost anyway - extra classes, dual degrees, etc. I'll be just fine, just a matter of where I will be and what is likely to make that happen the fastest. I appreciate your feedback, but y'all seriously need to step away from the doom and gloom stuff and smell the roses for a bit. Life isn't all about top-notch success, it's about being happy and doing what you're passionate about. If I have to work extra hard to get there, so be it.

DCnative
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:15 am

Never said I had a crystal ball, nor did I claim to know everything. That doesn't discredit the fact that many people go to law school without knowing it's what they want to do with their lives - they go simply because they think they can make money in the field.

"Research" is not predicting the future. It's knowing what you're getting yourself into by looking at available options, and using those facts and opinions to make what you think would be the best possible choice for yourself.

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:17 am

DCnative wrote:Never said I had a crystal ball, nor did I claim to know everything. That doesn't discredit the fact that many people go to law school without knowing it's what they want to do with their lives - they go simply because they think they can make money in the field.

"Research" is not predicting the future. It's knowing what you're getting yourself into by looking at available options, and using those facts and opinions to make what you think would be the best possible choice for yourself.

What if you end up below median? You will prob not get a legal job; and if you do, it prob will not be something you will like..

Also how much will these schools cost you

DCnative
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:22 am

Take your pessimism get out of here. THAT certainly isn't going to get anyone anywhere. If we go through life being negative, then we won't ever get what we want because guess what? Positivity is what gives us the motivation and drive to succeed. What if I end up below the median? Then I will deal with it then and cope with the consequences. What if I DON'T end up below the median? ...

It's better to have tried so that I have the possibility of succeeding, rather than shutting that door before even trying. You can't fail before you try. You also can't succeed before you try. Not taking risks also doesn't get you anywhere.

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:24 am

DCnative wrote:Take your pessimism get out of here. THAT certainly isn't going to get anyone anywhere. If we go through life being negative, then we won't ever get what we want because guess what? Positivity is what gives us the motivation and drive to succeed. What if I end up below the median? Then I will deal with it then and cope with the consequences. What if I DON'T end up below the median? ...

It's better to have tried so that I have the possibility of succeeding, rather than shutting that door before even trying. You can't fail before you try. You also can't succeed before you try. Not taking risks also doesn't get you anywhere.

Then you still prob wont be able to find a job.

Good luck.. see you on xoxo in a few years

Slevin Kelevra 2011
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby Slevin Kelevra 2011 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:29 am

Be weary of both schools.

Suffolk would have to compete against BC/BU/Harvard and Northeastern.

WM has to compete against MN/UST and Iowa/Wisconsin.

It isn't a good market for students at these schools which are largely the worst schools in their respective markets (Hamline is probably worse in MN and New England is probably worse in MA, but you get the drift).

aliarrow
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby aliarrow » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:30 am

DCnative wrote:Take your pessimism get out of here. THAT certainly isn't going to get anyone anywhere. If we go through life being negative, then we won't ever get what we want because guess what? Positivity is what gives us the motivation and drive to succeed. What if I end up below the median? Then I will deal with it then and cope with the consequences. What if I DON'T end up below the median? ...

It's better to have tried so that I have the possibility of succeeding, rather than shutting that door before even trying. You can't fail before you try. You also can't succeed before you try. Not taking risks also doesn't get you anywhere.


So this is going to be one of those threads...
OP, you probably aren't going to get anywhere. Many have tried the 'pull yourself up by your boot straps and stay positive' approach before and it typically ends up in 20+ pages of circular arguments that don't go anywhere.

That said, the odds are stacked against you. If you truly want to be a lawyer and can't do any better on the LSAT then I guess go for it, just acknowledge there is a significant chance of not ending up employed as a lawyer. I don't think anyone on here really knows the ultimate fate of grads of lower ranked schools 5-10 years later. It would seem that if you aren't able to get a legal job right after graduation, then several years of work experience in a completely unrelated field and a resume that screams 'I failed' won't make you anymore likely to get a legal job down the road. But cases vary and maybe you will manage to snag a job at a small firm. It's entirely speculation at that point though.

All we can do is look at the statistics and tell you what's a good idea based on probability.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby ResolutePear » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:34 am

DCnative wrote:It's better to have tried so that I have the possibility of succeeding, rather than shutting that door before even trying. You can't fail before you try. You also can't succeed before you try. Not taking risks also doesn't get you anywhere.


Risk is for dumbasses and 14 y/o kids without another gameboard to play.

I mean, hell - Medical Doctors are pretty damn successful and they're pretty much guaranteed it.. No risk there. Civil servants don't need to risk anything, and some of them are the most successful in the country.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby paratactical » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:36 am

DCnative wrote:Take your pessimism get out of here. THAT certainly isn't going to get anyone anywhere. If we go through life being negative, then we won't ever get what we want because guess what? Positivity is what gives us the motivation and drive to succeed. What if I end up below the median? Then I will deal with it then and cope with the consequences. What if I DON'T end up below the median? ...

It's better to have tried so that I have the possibility of succeeding, rather than shutting that door before even trying. You can't fail before you try. You also can't succeed before you try. Not taking risks also doesn't get you anywhere.

I appreciate your optimism and your desire to be positive, but it's not negative to be realisitc and to have a back up plan in case things fail. Have you thought about what you'll do if you end up in a lot of debt and can't get a job as a lawyer?

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby ResolutePear » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:37 am

aliarrow wrote:
DCnative wrote:Take your pessimism get out of here. THAT certainly isn't going to get anyone anywhere. If we go through life being negative, then we won't ever get what we want because guess what? Positivity is what gives us the motivation and drive to succeed. What if I end up below the median? Then I will deal with it then and cope with the consequences. What if I DON'T end up below the median? ...

It's better to have tried so that I have the possibility of succeeding, rather than shutting that door before even trying. You can't fail before you try. You also can't succeed before you try. Not taking risks also doesn't get you anywhere.


So this is going to be one of those threads...
OP, you probably aren't going to get anywhere. Many have tried the 'pull yourself up by your boot straps and stay positive' approach before and it typically ends up in 20+ pages of circular arguments that don't go anywhere.

That said, the odds are stacked against you. If you truly want to be a lawyer and can't do any better on the LSAT then I guess go for it, just acknowledge there is a significant chance of not ending up employed as a lawyer. I don't think anyone on here really knows the ultimate fate of grads of lower ranked schools 5-10 years later. It would seem that if you aren't able to get a legal job right after graduation, then several years of work experience in a completely unrelated field and a resume that screams 'I failed' won't make you anymore likely to get a legal job down the road. But cases vary and maybe you will manage to snag a job at a small firm. It's entirely speculation at that point though.

All we can do is look at the statistics and tell you what's a good idea based on probability.


The problem with law is, there's a law school for EVERYBODY. Unfortunately, the workforce doesn't suscribe to this notion.

aliarrow
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby aliarrow » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:41 am

ResolutePear wrote:
DCnative wrote:It's better to have tried so that I have the possibility of succeeding, rather than shutting that door before even trying. You can't fail before you try. You also can't succeed before you try. Not taking risks also doesn't get you anywhere.


Risk is for dumbasses and 14 y/o kids without another gameboard to play.

I mean, hell - Medical Doctors are pretty damn successful and they're pretty much guaranteed it.. No risk there. Civil servants don't need to risk anything, and some of them are the most successful in the country.


Maybe I'm a dumbass, but I do see the risk appeal of law. Part of the reason I didn't stick with pre-med is it just seemed too boring, to have a pretty predictable life path and foreseeable future.
I think there definitely is a higher potential and more versatility in law, albeit with a much higher chance of failure in exchange. Some people just enjoy the rush, although it really does need to be a calculated risk (ie not going to a truly awful TTTT and hoping to strike it rich on your own, a T14 is more of a 'calculated risk'. For clarification, WM and Suffolk aren't truly awful TTTTs though, they're decent for TTTTs, but still TTTTs)

User avatar
observationalist
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby observationalist » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:42 am

DCnative, I'm joining the people who recommend that you will reconsider attending either law school at full price, but I suggest you first take a look at the available employment information. This means looking at what's out there from previous years and then contacting the schools to get the current information. Anything less and you're making an irresponsible decision.

While your work experience in the legal sector was great to help you determine for yourself whether you would be happy practicing law, it should in no way be something you rely on when determining whether or not you can actually obtain legal employment from these schools. I strongly recommend you use your acceptances as leverage to obtain data on Class of 2010 employment from both schools. Career services offices just submitted forms to NALP last month, in which they were asked to document an enormous amount of helpful information on what each graduate is doing for work. These include the employer type (and for law firms it's broken down by size to distinguish large/mid/small), whether the job was JD-required or JD-preferred (a lot of graduates are only finding administrative positions at law firms that don't require a JD, something schools will not disclose when reporting the percentage working for a law firm), and whether a job was FT or PT (a lot of grads will sign up with legal temp agencies after they pass the bar, which offer extremely limited upward mobility and are financially dangerous for someone who has to make monthly loan payments and can't afford to have periodic breaks in employment). It was responsible of you to gain a few years of experience in the profession to sort out your personal goals, but that does not mean that choosing a school without reviewing the recent employment information is a wise decision.

Additionally, your interest in environmental or international human rights law (which essentially don't exist) is the type of idealism about the profession that can really lead to making a bad financial decision. Over half of all applicants express a desire to work in the public interest, but a significant portion of them will never actually have the opportunity to do legal or even legal-related work. Admissions offices expect this level of idealism, which is why their promotional materials tend to play up those opportunities while ignoring the reality of recent job outcomes. This is true for graduates of virtually every school, but the financial and aspirational risks both increase as the reputation of a program goes down and an ever-shrinking percentage of the class will have an opportunity to enter the legal profession.

Until you can get the 2010 data, check out the data clearinghouse pages for Class of 2008 grads here:
--LinkRemoved--

Some thoughts: In a good year, just 27% of WM grads found work paying $60K or more, while just 41% made 47K or more. Although 78% of employed grads landed up in the private sector, this is misleading because it includes a full 1/4 of the class were employed in 'business/industry.' The reporting guidelines are extremely lax, and there are no further breakdown required in terms of what that business/industry could have meant. The offical ABA explanation is that "a job is a job." Schools get to make the determination of how to count each graduate's outcome. As vanwinkle just said, someone who tells their school that they are waiting tables or bartending on weekends while seeking work will get counted by their school as employed in business/industry, rather than unemployed/seeking. Anyone working in any job nine months after graduation gets counted, and seeing as loan repayment starts six months after graduation it is pretty much a guarantee that people will find some way to earn income. I won't provide more anecdotes since you didn't respond well to vanwinkles, but rest assured there are thousands upon thousands of licensed attorneys from the Class of 2010 with no legal job prospects and struggling to find any permanent job, including many who were paralegals beforehand and never thought they would be in a worse position than before they went back to school.

Back to the data clearinghouse stuff. 2008 was one of the best years on record, for every law school. Knowing that when the legal hiring market was at its peak, just 41% of WM grads reported making $47K or more, and a full 1/4 of the class (80 people) were potentially waiting tables or bartending instead of practicing law, is scary. Given the radical changes in the hiring market since 2008, a risk-averse applicant without access to the 2010 numbers might assume placement to be about half what it used to be. That would mean a 20% chance at making $47K or more and a 50% chance that you have no legal opportunities whatsoever, regardless of whether or not you pass the bar and are licensed to practice.

These estimates are by no means accurate, but hopefully the thought process underscores the manner in which you should be approaching the available employment data. Above everything, you really need full employer lists for Class of 2010 grads. There are no legal or ethical reasons why the career services offices at each school can't provide you with a full list of what every 2010 grad was doing or not doing for work. Suffolk in particular might wish to be responsive to your request, given that one of their competitor schools just came forward with similar data after being asked by a TLS poster (see here: viewtopic.php?f=4&p=4215515#p4215515 )

I encourage you to approach the data for Suffolk in the same manner I looked at WM: --LinkRemoved--
It can really help you visualize just how much data the schools aren't letting you see.

Best of luck in getting the information you need. And if you want to make a contribution to the collective TLS wisdom afterward, you could post any responses you get from the schools. If you don't get a positive response, I'm sure applicants of both these schools would be willing to follow up. Ultimately this will be your call, so I wish you luck if you do end up deciding to attend. Just act responsible in contacting the schools for information, rather than assume that optimism and a few years in the profession is enough to justify significant personal debt and three years of lost earnings potentially doing something you love (like environmental advocacy or international human rights work).

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:43 am

^/thread

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby ResolutePear » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:47 am

aliarrow wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
DCnative wrote:It's better to have tried so that I have the possibility of succeeding, rather than shutting that door before even trying. You can't fail before you try. You also can't succeed before you try. Not taking risks also doesn't get you anywhere.


Risk is for dumbasses and 14 y/o kids without another gameboard to play.

I mean, hell - Medical Doctors are pretty damn successful and they're pretty much guaranteed it.. No risk there. Civil servants don't need to risk anything, and some of them are the most successful in the country.


Maybe I'm a dumbass, but I do see the risk appeal of law. Part of the reason I didn't stick with pre-med is it just seemed too boring, to have a pretty predictable life path and foreseeable future.
I think there definitely is a higher potential and more versatility in law, albeit with a much higher chance of failure in exchange. Some people just enjoy the rush, although it really does need to be a calculated risk (ie not going to a truly awful TTTT and hoping to strike it rich on your own, a T14 is more of a 'calculated risk'. For clarification, WM and Suffolk aren't truly awful TTTTs though, they're decent for TTTTs, but still TTTTs)


Candidates for med school are going to successful either way. :mrgreen:




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest