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 10:50 am

Risk isn't for dumbasses, resolutepear. Sure, medical doctors and civil servants are successful fields. However, you can't say that businessmen don't take risks. People gamble in business everyday and can make it big. The fact that they took a risk is oftentimes the reason they're successful, not because they calculated their rise in the market. There are plenty of examples like that in law. I certainly don't expect to be one of them, but wanting to take risks doesn't mean I'm a dumbass.

As for jobs in the legal field, I've certainly thought about prospects in the field and know that it's not guaranteed. And yes, I have thought about alternatives should I have a hard time getting into the field. That's actually the appealing thing of a JD to me - if the legal field itself does not work out, it's a very versatile degree that can be desireable in lots of other fields, unlike other more specific graduate degrees that I'm simply just not interested in pursuing.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby paratactical » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:51 am

DCnative wrote:That's actually the appealing thing of a JD to me - if the legal field itself does not work out, it's a very versatile degree that can be desireable in lots of other fields, unlike other more specific graduate degrees that I'm simply just not interested in pursuing.

This is not true.

sullidop
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby sullidop » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:52 am

DCnative wrote:Risk isn't for dumbasses, resolutepear. Sure, medical doctors and civil servants are successful fields. However, you can't say that businessmen don't take risks. People gamble in business everyday and can make it big. The fact that they took a risk is oftentimes the reason they're successful, not because they calculated their rise in the market. There are plenty of examples like that in law. I certainly don't expect to be one of them, but wanting to take risks doesn't mean I'm a dumbass.

As for jobs in the legal field, I've certainly thought about prospects in the field and know that it's not guaranteed. And yes, I have thought about alternatives should I have a hard time getting into the field. That's actually the appealing thing of a JD to me - if the legal field itself does not work out, it's a very versatile degree that can be desireable in lots of other fields, unlike other more specific graduate degrees that I'm simply just not interested in pursuing.


Disagree.

sullidop
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby sullidop » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:53 am

paratactical wrote:
DCnative wrote:That's actually the appealing thing of a JD to me - if the legal field itself does not work out, it's a very versatile degree that can be desireable in lots of other fields, unlike other more specific graduate degrees that I'm simply just not interested in pursuing.

This is not true.


High-five!

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:54 am

paratactical wrote:
DCnative wrote:That's actually the appealing thing of a JD to me - if the legal field itself does not work out, it's a very versatile degree that can be desireable in lots of other fields, unlike other more specific graduate degrees that I'm simply just not interested in pursuing.

This is not true.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby observationalist » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:55 am

Also, DCnative, here's some more advice I forgot to mention about how to get scholarships if you do decide to attend, offered up by another TLSer: http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... law-school

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby aliarrow » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:56 am

paratactical wrote:
DCnative wrote:That's actually the appealing thing of a JD to me - if the legal field itself does not work out, it's a very versatile degree that can be desireable in lots of other fields, unlike other more specific graduate degrees that I'm simply just not interested in pursuing.

This is not true.


I think it is to an extent.
If versatile means being able to land a good job in Business with a random company because you're otherwise inexperienced yet have a fancy JD, then no, a JD is not versatile.

A JD is versatile to the extent you aren't forced to be an actual practicing attorney all your life. There are opportunities to go into Politics, Academia, Some business jobs (although you'll probably have to actually be successful as an attorney first), Civil Service, Federal Law Enforcement, etc. I mean, the first three pretty much applies to any field though, so JDs don't necessarily get a 'versatility boost'. I do think it's marginally more versatile when compared to certain other fields though.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:01 am

Thanks, observationalist. I will definitely contact both WM and Suffolk about more in-depth career data before making my decision. As for my interests, they are purely interests. I really don't have any idea what I'll end up liking in law school and I'm not ruling anything out at this point because I know that can easily change after 1L.

The rest of the haters - seriously, either ground your assertions with facts or stop posting meaningless opinions.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:03 am

Haha yes, indeed, aliarrow. I'm not interested in business anyway and for the fields I am interested in outside of law, a JD would certainly be a career-booster. I purely mean "versatility" in the sense that a JD is not as specialized a degree as other graduate degrees.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby aliarrow » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:05 am

I hate to discredit my otherwise informative posts, but the word haters has been used so I just ... can't ... resist...

--ImageRemoved--

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby alumniguy » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:15 am

I mean the OP has to be flame, right?

The guy has no ties to either the Boston or Minneapolis market and thinks the odds are in her/his favor that he is going to get a good job? OP is delusional. Both of these markets are insular. They prefer local students with ties. The Minneapolis market is arguably MORE saturated than the Boston market as there are just not that many entry level jobs in Minneapolis - and you're talking 4 law schools in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area alone. Having gone to BC (and doing well there), I can attest to the fact that even if you do well you aren't guaranteed a Boston job. I struck out in Boston, yet had multiple offers in other cities.

Pessimism aside, the OP should not go to law school (at least not yet). If OP is interested in "international human rights law" (which as someone with a background in international human rights I can assure you this field doesn't exist), then he should get a job at a non-profit and get some actual experience with the international human rights field. Start your career NOW and THEN if you think it would be helpful to get a law degree, go to school part time while you are working. Or get a paralegal job somewhere NOW. Work hard and you will get just as much responsibility as an junior associate and probably make as much as you could have hoped for graduating from one of these bottom of the barrel schools.

Be honest - these schools are like the community college schools of the undergraduate world. Yes, one person may end up with a great job. But the majority of the class is fumbling along trying to find a decent paying job. Any prospective 1L who can't face reality and see that the MAJORITY of graduates of these schools SIMPLY DON'T GET GOOD JOBS deserves to be up to their chin in debt.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby alumniguy » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:17 am

DCnative wrote:Haha yes, indeed, aliarrow. I'm not interested in business anyway and for the fields I am interested in outside of law, a JD would certainly be a career-booster. I purely mean "versatility" in the sense that a JD is not as specialized a degree as other graduate degrees.


A 200k career-booster? You're crazy man. And I agree, a JD is versatile - if you don't get a legal job, you can find plenty of server, janitor and other low-paying, low-skill jobs that would take you and your JD.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby JOThompson » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:19 am

alumniguy wrote:
DCnative wrote:Haha yes, indeed, aliarrow. I'm not interested in business anyway and for the fields I am interested in outside of law, a JD would certainly be a career-booster. I purely mean "versatility" in the sense that a JD is not as specialized a degree as other graduate degrees.


A 200k career-booster? You're crazy man. And I agree, a JD is versatile - if you don't get a legal job, you can find plenty of server, janitor and other low-paying, low-skill jobs that would take you and your JD.

A J.D. isn't nearly as flexible as many people would love to believe, but there are a handful of J.D. preferred jobs out there.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby ResolutePear » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:19 am

In fact, a JD will boost your career so much that you'll be overqualified for entry level jobs and underqualified for mid-level careers outside of law.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby alumniguy » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:24 am

JOThompson wrote:
alumniguy wrote:
DCnative wrote:Haha yes, indeed, aliarrow. I'm not interested in business anyway and for the fields I am interested in outside of law, a JD would certainly be a career-booster. I purely mean "versatility" in the sense that a JD is not as specialized a degree as other graduate degrees.


A 200k career-booster? You're crazy man. And I agree, a JD is versatile - if you don't get a legal job, you can find plenty of server, janitor and other low-paying, low-skill jobs that would take you and your JD.

A J.D. isn't nearly as flexible as many people would love to believe, but there are a handful of J.D. preferred jobs out there.


Well certainly there are J.D. preferred jobs, but that is the thing - they are preferred. And an applicant from some middling law school is probably not going to be competitive compared to other other people who have experience in the field. I see a ton of J.D. preferred job in compliance positions at financial institutions and big corporations. A J.D. is preferred, but you can be assured that these places aren't hiring fresh out of law school graduates with sub-par credentials over an experienced candidate without a JD.

User avatar
zreinhar
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:15 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby zreinhar » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:34 am

This thread is fun. OP I think you can do it. I mean you already have legal experience! The stuff you did at work will totally give you good grades at law school I mean most of those kids just majored in history and stuff, so they wont know anything about it. But you have real world experience. You should be good.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:34 am

zreinhar wrote:This thread is fun. OP I think you can do it. I mean you already have legal experience! The stuff you did at work will totally give you good grades at law school I mean most of those kids just majored in history and stuff, so they wont know anything about it. But you have real world experience. You should be good.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:35 am

Alumniguy, if you'd read my prior posts, then you would note that I do have connections and ties to Minneapolis. I don't in Boston, hence why I started this thread in the first place to see if I can get meaningful advice from outside perspectives.

You'd also note that I do work as a paralegal, and have been for two years now. Guess they didn't teach you close reading in law school. I also did not say I was looking for a $200k "career-booster." Take your fictitious notions elsewhere and maybe try reading posts before commenting with your meaningless, unsupported opinions. The possibility of failure doesn't mean I WILL fail. And if I do, I accept that. I'm looking for advice about the schools themselves and if you don't care to provide that, then find some other thread to bash because it doesn't bother me.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby DCnative » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:40 am

zreinhar wrote:This thread is fun. OP I think you can do it. I mean you already have legal experience! The stuff you did at work will totally give you good grades at law school I mean most of those kids just majored in history and stuff, so they wont know anything about it. But you have real world experience. You should be good.


Ha. Ha. Ha. You're so witty. Where did I say in my posts that I am expecting any of the above? Where have I said that I am entitled to any of that simply because I work. I know the odds are tough, and I'm even more aware that law school is different than undergrad. I also know that everything work-wise that I'm doing now doesn't translate. I never said "I should be good." A positive attitude doesn't mean I'm absolutely going to succeed, but it means I'm damn well going to try.

User avatar
zreinhar
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:15 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby zreinhar » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:46 am

DCnative wrote:
zreinhar wrote:This thread is fun. OP I think you can do it. I mean you already have legal experience! The stuff you did at work will totally give you good grades at law school I mean most of those kids just majored in history and stuff, so they wont know anything about it. But you have real world experience. You should be good.


Ha. Ha. Ha. You're so witty. Where did I say in my posts that I am expecting any of the above? Where have I said that I am entitled to any of that simply because I work. I know the odds are tough, and I'm even more aware that law school is different than undergrad. I also know that everything work-wise that I'm doing now doesn't translate. I never said "I should be good." A positive attitude doesn't mean I'm absolutely going to succeed, but it means I'm damn well going to try.



I didn't say you said it. I said you were going to DO it. Besides all these people telling you otherwise are just the naysayers who will hide behind their fancy well reasearched T14 degrees. They won't actually be good at their jobs.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby alumniguy » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:47 am

aliarrow wrote:
paratactical wrote:
DCnative wrote:That's actually the appealing thing of a JD to me - if the legal field itself does not work out, it's a very versatile degree that can be desireable in lots of other fields, unlike other more specific graduate degrees that I'm simply just not interested in pursuing.

This is not true.


I think it is to an extent.
If versatile means being able to land a good job in Business with a random company because you're otherwise inexperienced yet have a fancy JD, then no, a JD is not versatile.

A JD is versatile to the extent you aren't forced to be an actual practicing attorney all your life. There are opportunities to go into Politics, Academia, Some business jobs (although you'll probably have to actually be successful as an attorney first), Civil Service, Federal Law Enforcement, etc. I mean, the first three pretty much applies to any field though, so JDs don't necessarily get a 'versatility boost'. I do think it's marginally more versatile when compared to certain other fields though.


Agreed, but as you said you need to be successful. Going to WM or Suffolk isn't being successful. The fact remains that pretty much ANYONE who wants to go to a law school and find a law school to attend in the U.S. Going to a law school does not equal success.

Moreover, the whole notion that a JD is more versatile then other graduate level degrees is far overplayed. A JD is a PROFESSIONAL DEGREE. It is like a medical degree or a social work degree. You get a JD to practice law. Are there other potential uses for a JD, sure but not to the extent that clueless pre-law school students imagine.

If you are going to law school and you aren't 90% sure you WANT to practice law, then you are wasting your money. You don't go to law school because the degree is versatile. You go to law school because you want to be a lawyer. A JD is versatile because after you've been practicing law for some time, the skills you develop as a lawyer translate into different fields. For example, if you are an associate at a large law firm and you do capital markets work, then you are becoming intimately involved in securities law and you'll be working on deals that will expose you to both the legal and non-legal (i.e., business) side of the deal. After several years, you will be valuable because you understand the law as well as many business points. At this point, you may decide you want to move to the business side. THIS IS WHAT IT IS MEANT BY A JD BEING VERSATILE. It will give you opportunities that you wouldn't otherwise have had by being exposed to them while you are practicing law.

A JD is NOT like an undergrad liberal arts degree. You don't go to law school because well, gee, I really like international human rights law and environmental law. I want to help out people in need or save the environment. You aren't suddenly more marketable as an entry level applicant because of your JD.

I do feel somewhat unfortunate for the impressionable/overly optimistic aspiring law school applicants like the OP (and his defenders) on this board. I am also shocked at the ignorance and pure stupidity of these same people.

sullidop
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby sullidop » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:50 am

All joking/mocking/questioning aside, I think Boston is probably the better market for the unsure given that it has more opportunity. Therefore, I'd lean Suffolk.

User avatar
zreinhar
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:15 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby zreinhar » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:51 am

alumniguy wrote:
aliarrow wrote:
paratactical wrote:
DCnative wrote:That's actually the appealing thing of a JD to me - if the legal field itself does not work out, it's a very versatile degree that can be desireable in lots of other fields, unlike other more specific graduate degrees that I'm simply just not interested in pursuing.

This is not true.


I think it is to an extent.
If versatile means being able to land a good job in Business with a random company because you're otherwise inexperienced yet have a fancy JD, then no, a JD is not versatile.

A JD is versatile to the extent you aren't forced to be an actual practicing attorney all your life. There are opportunities to go into Politics, Academia, Some business jobs (although you'll probably have to actually be successful as an attorney first), Civil Service, Federal Law Enforcement, etc. I mean, the first three pretty much applies to any field though, so JDs don't necessarily get a 'versatility boost'. I do think it's marginally more versatile when compared to certain other fields though.


Agreed, but as you said you need to be successful. Going to WM or Suffolk isn't being successful. The fact remains that pretty much ANYONE who wants to go to a law school and find a law school to attend in the U.S. Going to a law school does not equal success.

Moreover, the whole notion that a JD is more versatile then other graduate level degrees is far overplayed. A JD is a PROFESSIONAL DEGREE. It is like a medical degree or a social work degree. You get a JD to practice law. Are there other potential uses for a JD, sure but not to the extent that clueless pre-law school students imagine.

If you are going to law school and you aren't 90% sure you WANT to practice law, then you are wasting your money. You don't go to law school because the degree is versatile. You go to law school because you want to be a lawyer. A JD is versatile because after you've been practicing law for some time, the skills you develop as a lawyer translate into different fields. For example, if you are an associate at a large law firm and you do capital markets work, then you are becoming intimately involved in securities law and you'll be working on deals that will expose you to both the legal and non-legal (i.e., business) side of the deal. After several years, you will be valuable because you understand the law as well as many business points. At this point, you may decide you want to move to the business side. THIS IS WHAT IT IS MEANT BY A JD BEING VERSATILE. It will give you opportunities that you wouldn't otherwise have had by being exposed to them while you are practicing law.

A JD is NOT like an undergrad liberal arts degree. You don't go to law school because well, gee, I really like international human rights law and environmental law. I want to help out people in need or save the environment. You aren't suddenly more marketable as an entry level applicant because of your JD.

I do feel somewhat unfortunate for the impressionable/overly optimistic aspiring law school applicants like the OP (and his defenders) on this board. I am also shocked at the ignorance and pure stupidity of these same people.


Bro its not ignorance, what if that suffolk grad worked at a really really nice restuarant Vanwinkle mentioned? and consulted for their slip and fall suits? That's versatile as hell.

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

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby thecilent » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:52 am

zreinhar wrote:
alumniguy wrote:Agreed, but as you said you need to be successful. Going to WM or Suffolk isn't being successful. The fact remains that pretty much ANYONE who wants to go to a law school and find a law school to attend in the U.S. Going to a law school does not equal success.

Moreover, the whole notion that a JD is more versatile then other graduate level degrees is far overplayed. A JD is a PROFESSIONAL DEGREE. It is like a medical degree or a social work degree. You get a JD to practice law. Are there other potential uses for a JD, sure but not to the extent that clueless pre-law school students imagine.

If you are going to law school and you aren't 90% sure you WANT to practice law, then you are wasting your money. You don't go to law school because the degree is versatile. You go to law school because you want to be a lawyer. A JD is versatile because after you've been practicing law for some time, the skills you develop as a lawyer translate into different fields. For example, if you are an associate at a large law firm and you do capital markets work, then you are becoming intimately involved in securities law and you'll be working on deals that will expose you to both the legal and non-legal (i.e., business) side of the deal. After several years, you will be valuable because you understand the law as well as many business points. At this point, you may decide you want to move to the business side. THIS IS WHAT IT IS MEANT BY A JD BEING VERSATILE. It will give you opportunities that you wouldn't otherwise have had by being exposed to them while you are practicing law.

A JD is NOT like an undergrad liberal arts degree. You don't go to law school because well, gee, I really like international human rights law and environmental law. I want to help out people in need or save the environment. You aren't suddenly more marketable as an entry level applicant because of your JD.

I do feel somewhat unfortunate for the impressionable/overly optimistic aspiring law school applicants like the OP (and his defenders) on this board. I am also shocked at the ignorance and pure stupidity of these same people.


Bro its not ignorance, what if that suffolk grad worked at a really really nice restuarant Vanwinkle mentioned? and consulted for their slip and fall suits? That's versatile as hell.

Tyft

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Suffolk or William Mitchell??

Postby alumniguy » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:56 am

DCnative wrote:Alumniguy, if you'd read my prior posts, then you would note that I do have connections and ties to Minneapolis. I don't in Boston, hence why I started this thread in the first place to see if I can get meaningful advice from outside perspectives.

You'd also note that I do work as a paralegal, and have been for two years now. Guess they didn't teach you close reading in law school. I also did not say I was looking for a $200k "career-booster." Take your fictitious notions elsewhere and maybe try reading posts before commenting with your meaningless, unsupported opinions. The possibility of failure doesn't mean I WILL fail. And if I do, I accept that. I'm looking for advice about the schools themselves and if you don't care to provide that, then find some other thread to bash because it doesn't bother me.


Um, having friends that live in Minneapolis DOES NOT equal ties to the region. Are you going to put on your resume that you have a bunch of friends that live there? No. Your resume is going to read that you went to law school in MN, but otherwise have no other ties to the area. No work history. No school history. Nothing. Even if you do manage to snag an interview, you can't say you have family ties either. And by the time you interview, of course you'll have friends in the area because you'll have spent a year there. You obviously haven't thought this one through yet.

And yes, I did know you said you worked as a paralegal. That is why I mentioned it, so as to get you to think...hmmm maybe I should spend a little bit more time being a paralegal.

And how much is Suffolk going to set you back in debt? Its like 40k a year tuition, right? Plus another 15-20k of living expenses per year? I guess 165k career-booster was more accurate.

Of course we aren't saying your going to fail, but the odds are that a significant number of students at these schools don't have job prospects upon graduation.

Advice about the schools - I'll give it to you: schools filled with middling students, cutthroat competition, probably friendly professors, little to no difference in job prospects, neither well regarded by "our" generation of lawyers/law school students but the older generation probably thinks they're ok, but certainly not great.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anon369 and 1 guest