Pacific ($$) vs. (Loyola, Sticker) Forum

[seaguy2010]

Did you not consider the scenario in which 90% are given a significant scholarship, in which all these students are required to maintain top 1/3? Is that fair? If it is, you should Definitely go to Pacific.

I think it's completely fair in that the school is acting in its own self-interest. Explicit deception is a different story.

[arhmcpo]

If you have to go to law school with these options, go Loyola. Yes, Loyola has had many successful grads but its all relative - they have been around forever, graduate like a 1000 students a year; those super successful lawyers your citing are not only exceedingly rare but as another poster pointed out, this is the worst legal economy, maybe ever; so everyone of those super successful lawyers (i.e. Garagos) also had the benefit of graduating into a market where they could get a job, that was legal and full time, with the opportunity for upward movement.

A significant chunk of Loyola's grad class (not nearly a majority but not insignificant either) is either unemployed/working part-time/working full time in a non-legal field (hello starbucks) when they graduate and 9 months after; then an unknown % will have legal jobs that are full time but do not pay enough to cover their loan payments or if they do, leave them completely broke.

What posters are saying on this board is: Pacific is a terrible option; and Loyola is very risky and ill-advised at sticker. You can still make that choice but understand the risks beforehand; your essentially going to Vegas and gambling with the next 3 years of your life.

Figure out how much debt: tuition + COL you will have when you graduate; how much will your loan payments be per month when you graduate; how much money do you have to make to afford those payments + have enough left over to live a semi-decent life; what % of Loyola graduates make that much out of Loyola. The last factor may be impossible to determine; the school job statistics are not accurate so don't use those; someone on this board made a stickied thread showing based on US News reporting more accurate average data for salary and placement from the T100 schools. go check it out, run the numbers and then either choose Loyola, or retake lsat, get another year of work experience, and build up some savings to reduce your future law school debt. Loyola's a good school, but sticker for it is ...risky to say the least.

[Grizz]

$200k for Loyola is asinine. Go to Pacific and drop out if you lose the money. You were probably going to be unemployed anyway.

[scammedhard]

I don't think it would matter -- looks like OP has his mind made up regardless of what wisdom TLS has to offer him.

Oh, well. At least we tried...

[bk1]

Even if you keep your scholarship, both of these schools are going to cost you $150,000 or more in debt. That kind of debt is going to take a 6 figure salary to pay back in a reasonable amount of time, something that the vast majority of students at these schools do not get. Even worse, only 50-60% of the kids from these schools actually get full time jobs as lawyers.

Check out the data here: --LinkRemoved-- and --LinkRemoved--

Simply put these schools are atrocious and are not worth anything close to sticker price.

[Turtledove]

both are good schools, especially loyola, go with sticker, it's worth it

You already seem to know what you want. And at any rate, I would continue to listen to what Red_alertz has to say as he's known for always providing helpful objective advice around here.



In all seriousness though...

Have you seen this graph. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=150681

30% of Loyola graduates do not have full time work and I guarantee you a large portion of the 70% are doing $20/hr contract work or woking at $40k/year small law jobs. While there are certainly some who will make it and others that will have satisfying careers a VERY substantial portion of the graduating class (perhaps a majority) will either never practice law or will have minimally satisfying legal jobs for a few years before they have to leave the profession.

None of this should necessarily stop you from going to the school if you have a large scholarship and are willing to take the risk of ending up with no legal employment after graduation. However at sticker you'll have at least $150k of loans (and approximately 2k in loan repayments every month for ten years). That's would be very difficult to serve if you're working in a small law job making $4k a month and impossible if you're unemployed or under-employed.

None of this is a reflection on the quality of education at Loyola -- from what I've heard it's a very good school with lots of very accomplished graduates. However, the state of the legal economy is pretty dire and you would probably do well to reconsider attending Loyola at sticker.

[seaguy2010]

One thing that might change the dynamic is that I'm not planning to go the conventional route. I already work at a job where I'm making 70K+, but I'm going back to school to study law because I have a strong interest in actually understanding the law and then applying it. I aim to get an MBA as well and get my hands on as many internships, projects, and opportunities for real-world experience as possible. In terms of connections, I have a strong pool of connections from my current work as well as my previous business, and I plan to build and nurture these as I progress through school. My goal, from the start, is to form a small, private practice. Ownership and autonomy is the objective, and I plan to acquire the education at law school, but ultimately carve my niche out on my own. This is my goal, even if it requires taking a dramatically less amount of money for several years. Experience in a firm will most likely be necessary for me, at least initially, in order to reach this objective, but I'm less interested in starting salaries than I am with a more holistic picture of where I plan to take my career.

[scammedhard]

One thing that might change the dynamic I'm not planning to go the conventional route. I already work at a job where I'm making 70K+, but I'm going back to school to study law because I have a strong interest in actually understanding the law and then applying it. I aim to get an MBA as well and get my hands on as many internships, projects, and opportunities for real-world experience as possible. In terms of connections, I have a strong pool of connections from my current work, and I plan to build and nurture these as I progress through school. My goal, from the start, is to form a small, private practice. Ownership and autonomy is the objective, and I plan to acquire the education at law school, but ultimately carve my niche out on my own. Experience in a firm will most likely be necessary for me, at least initially, in order to reach this objective, but I'm less interested in starting salaries than I am with a more holistic picture of where I plan to take my career.

Fine. Good luck then.

[dpk711]

One thing that might change the dynamic is that I'm not planning to go the conventional route. I already work at a job where I'm making 70K+, but I'm going back to school to study law because I have a strong interest in actually understanding the law and then applying it. I aim to get an MBA as well and get my hands on as many internships, projects, and opportunities for real-world experience as possible. In terms of connections, I have a strong pool of connections from my current work as well as my previous business, and I plan to build and nurture these as I progress through school. My goal, from the start, is to form a small, private practice. Ownership and autonomy is the objective, and I plan to acquire the education at law school, but ultimately carve my niche out on my own. This is my goal, even if it requires taking a dramatically less amount of money for several years. Experience in a firm will most likely be necessary for me, at least initially, in order to reach this objective, but I'm less interested in starting salaries than I am with a more holistic picture of where I plan to take my career.

Just remember what we warned you against.

[seaguy2010]

Just remember what we warned you against.

Will do.

[glewz]

Did you not consider the scenario in which 90% are given a significant scholarship, in which all these students are required to maintain top 1/3? Is that fair? If it is, you should Definitely go to Pacific.

I think it's completely fair in that the school is acting in its own self-interest. Explicit deception is a different story.

(1) You aren't answering my question.

(2) If someone needs to explicitly deceive you in order to deceive you, you are gonna have a tough time lawyering.

[seaguy2010]

Did you not consider the scenario in which 90% are given a significant scholarship, in which all these students are required to maintain top 1/3? Is that fair? If it is, you should Definitely go to Pacific.

I think it's completely fair in that the school is acting in its own self-interest. Explicit deception is a different story.

(1) You aren't answering my question.

(2) If someone needs to explicitly deceive you in order to deceive you, you are gonna have a tough time lawyering.

1) Obviously we have different conceptions of "fairness," and the inherent subjectivity makes me hesitant to give such a black and white answer.

The scholarship is used as an enticement by the schools to attract students of a higher caliber. Students have the ability to do independent research and find out more about these scholarships before accepting the offer. From the perspective of a student who did extremely poorly in terms of GPA during my undergrad years and then went on for 3 more years to bust my ass and become successfull at my job, and then compensate for my GPA with a high LSAT score, I think it is completely fair that more students are given scholarships than might actually keep them. As the "little guy," I would welcome the opportunity to be given a scholarship and then illustrate that I've earned it through scholastic achievement. Perhaps the solution is to lose the sense of entitlement. The business world is dirty, grimy, and not always "fair" in the conventional sense. Schools, particularly private schools, fall within this realm. People will, and generally should, act in their own self-interest, and it comes down to the person to take control and do their homework before making any kind of decision.

2) I wasn't referring to myself being deceived, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[JamMasterJ]

I wouldn't do either - neither is worth that much money - but if one must be chosen, you gotta go Loyola

[glewz]

Did you not consider the scenario in which 90% are given a significant scholarship, in which all these students are required to maintain top 1/3? Is that fair? If it is, you should Definitely go to Pacific.

I think it's completely fair in that the school is acting in its own self-interest. Explicit deception is a different story.

(1) You aren't answering my question.

(2) If someone needs to explicitly deceive you in order to deceive you, you are gonna have a tough time lawyering.

1) Obviously we have different conceptions of "fairness," and the inherent subjectivity makes me hesitant to give such a black and white answer.

The scholarship is used as an enticement by the schools to attract students of a higher caliber. Students have the ability to do independent research and find out more about these scholarships before accepting the offer. From the perspective of a student who did extremely poorly in terms of GPA during my undergrad years and then went on for 3 more years to bust my ass and become successfull at my job, and then compensate for my GPA with a high LSAT score, I think it is completely fair that more students are given scholarships than might actually keep them. As the "little guy," I would welcome the opportunity to be given a scholarship and then illustrate that I've earned it through scholastic achievement. Perhaps the solution is to lose the sense of entitlement. The business world is dirty, grimy, and not always "fair" in the conventional sense. Schools, particularly private schools, fall within this realm. People will, and generally should, act in their own self-interest, and it comes down to the person to take control and do their homework before making any kind of decision.

2) I wasn't referring to myself being deceived, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

You said very clearly "I think it's completey fair that stipulations are placed on scholarship money." And then I asked that question. You still have yet to tell me whether it is fair that a 90% scholarship 1L class be required to be in top 30% in order to maintain their scholarships.

The lottery has their odds very clearly publicized - those who buy it understand that they have no shot in hell. The point of the article is to point out that the odds are not publicized, and therefore, it is unfair that stipulations are made in the manner that they are. This runs counter to your initial claim, and probably a few points within your slowly evolving argument.

(2) I was pointing to general people being deceived. But in this case, you are one of them. Hence, this is why you have 90% of the posts within this thread (the other 10% is you, of course) telling you repeatedly: Loyola > 1/3 stips Pacific $$...you fool (I didn't say that last part, but many have)


Anyways, I'm vacating this thread. I've tried, and so has everyone else. If you srsly choose Pacific, I don't think anyone cares to convince you otherwise any longer.

[worldtraveler]

One thing that might change the dynamic is that I'm not planning to go the conventional route. I already work at a job where I'm making 70K+, but I'm going back to school to study law because I have a strong interest in actually understanding the law and then applying it. I aim to get an MBA as well and get my hands on as many internships, projects, and opportunities for real-world experience as possible. In terms of connections, I have a strong pool of connections from my current work as well as my previous business, and I plan to build and nurture these as I progress through school. My goal, from the start, is to form a small, private practice. Ownership and autonomy is the objective, and I plan to acquire the education at law school, but ultimately carve my niche out on my own. This is my goal, even if it requires taking a dramatically less amount of money for several years. Experience in a firm will most likely be necessary for me, at least initially, in order to reach this objective, but I'm less interested in starting salaries than I am with a more holistic picture of where I plan to take my career.

If you just want the law degree, then go somewhere for free. If you don't care about firms, then find a school in the LA area that will give you a full ride and you can just get the knowledge. 200k is not worth it.

You're also not unique in wanting to get as many experiences as possible. Everyone wants those.