Splitter-friendly schools for the Cali-bound

[sanetruth]

Spunoff from here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=157150

As I mentioned there, cali schools are notoriously anti-splitter. So for a splitter applicant hoping to land in SF, SV, or LA, what are the best options?

I'm thinking there are a few scenarios:

1) highest up the T14 as possible for best chances at being portable

2) school known for portability (michigan?)

3) opting for lower-ranked regional schools in SF or LA, but I feel like there is a significant drop in quality there...

other thoughts would be appreciated...

[glitter178]

of course it's going to matter what you mean by splitter. 3.0 and 175? the actual numbers matter.

i can't imagine anyone telling you it's a good idea to go to any of the "regional" schools in Cali. Many wouldn't even recommend going to USC or UCLA, and then there's that Cal thread about being unemployed as a top 25% at Boalt which is pretty terrifying. i suppose the goal would be stanford or the upper half of the T14, or large scholarships if possible to one of UCLA or USC.

[bk1]

It depends how big a split you are talking about, but there aren't really good options outside of lower T14 at sticker. The other options you have:

1. T20's (USC/UCLA) - Even if you get in, probably not getting money. Worse than T14 at sticker.
2. T50's (UCD/UCI/UCH) - Even if you get in, probably not getting enough money. Worse than T14 at sticker.
3. T100's (USF/SCU/Loyola/Pepperdine/USD) - The NorCal ones are fucking atrocious and place only 1/4 of their grads in full time jobs. The SoCal ones are generous with scholarship money but they all require either top 1/3 or top 1/2 stipulations to keep it and thus you have a 50% or higher chance of having to pay sticker during 2L and 3L. So, bad idea.

Honestly if you want CA, I would suggest a lower T14 at sticker and be willing to give up on CA if you can't get a job that services your debt level (e.g. biglaw/LRAP/IBR). Alternatively, you could do the go for 1 year to something like Pepperdine/Loyola on a full ride and drop out if you lose your scholarship.

[09042014]

Michigan is fairly splitter friendly. I think that should be choice 1. Northwestern is very friendly, and 25% of our class comes from California. The school claims we have good reputation there, but that could be bullshit.

[sanetruth]

you could do the go for 1 year to something like Pepperdine/Loyola on a full ride and drop out if you lose your scholarship.

It's sad to think this is ever a reasonable recommendation to someone with a 170+/3.0+

[bk1]

you could do the go for 1 year to something like Pepperdine/Loyola on a full ride and drop out if you lose your scholarship.

It's sad to think this is ever a reasonable recommendation to someone with a 170+/3.0+

Well the reasonable recommendation is give up on CA. But where people want to live isn't really a rational part of the law school equation.

[Danteshek]

Keep trolling troll. Stipulations make the system fair. I'm glad Loyola doesn't waste money on wasted talent.

[sanetruth]

Anything else?

[JamMasterJ]

Keep trolling troll. Stipulations make the system fair. I'm glad Loyola doesn't waste money on wasted talent.

It's pretty common sentiment on this site that stipulations are shitty. That really is not grounds for calling him a troll

[Danteshek]

Keep trolling troll. Stipulations make the system fair. I'm glad Loyola doesn't waste money on wasted talent.

It's pretty common sentiment on this site that stipulations are shitty. That really is not grounds for calling him a troll

I have read numerous bk posts over the past few months. He consistently shits on schools such as Loyola and Pepperdine. He is also extremely negative. His negativity is going to spoil any chance he has at a legal career, regardless of where he goes to school. In my mind, this makes him one of the worst trolls on this board.

I think enforcing scholarship stipulations is a sign of institutional integrity. I am proud of Loyola for keeping its scholarship students accountable.

[glitter178]

:?

Keep trolling troll. Stipulations make the system fair. I'm glad Loyola doesn't waste money on wasted talent.

It's pretty common sentiment on this site that stipulations are shitty. That really is not grounds for calling him a troll

I have read numerous bk posts over the past few months. He consistently shits on schools such as Loyola and Pepperdine. He is also extremely negative. His negativity is going to spoil any chance he has at a legal career, regardless of where he goes to school. In my mind, this makes him one of the worst trolls on this board.

I think enforcing scholarship stipulations is a sign of institutional integrity. I am proud of Loyola for keeping its scholarship students accountable.

lol. giving a top 30% stip doesn't keep students accountable. that's what "good standing" or top 70% stips do. it helps loyola get a better 1L class while simultaneously ensuring it won't be paying out too many scholarships to 2 or 3Ls.

[bk1]

I have read numerous of bk's posts over the past few months. He consistently shits on schools such as Loyola and Pepperdine. He is also extremely negative. His negativity is going to spoil any chance he has at a legal career, regardless of where he goes to school. In my mind, this makes him one of the worst trolls on this board.

I think enforcing scholarship stipulations is a sign of institutional integrity. I am proud of Loyola for keeping its scholarship students accountable.

Because I know you're actually serious:

1. If placing only 60% of your class into full time, bar required positions isn't a good enough reason to be negative about a school, then I don't know what is. Is this also something that makes you proud of Loyola?

2. Integrity? You're saying that a school where barely half of its students get full time jobs as lawyers, charges almost as much tuition as Harvard, and then gives the kids that do get scholarships a roughly 30% chance of keeping it is acting with integrity? Do you even know what that word means?

3. I'll just leave this here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... udy_finds/

[sanetruth]

Looks like this thread has been derailed and I fear it will never get back on track...

[bk1]

Looks like this thread has been derailed and I fear it will never get back on track...

Well what kind of split are you talking about?

[sanetruth]

Looks like this thread has been derailed and I fear it will never get back on track...

Well what kind of split are you talking about?

Let's say 3.1-3.3/171-173, because I've seen some super high LSAT splitters get really lucky this year so it wouldn't apply to them as much.

I'm thinking the best approach is just to go to the highest ranked school.

But do ties make a difference? Would a GULC student in good standing and ties to cali be able to reasonably bid on california?

[JamMasterJ]

I have read numerous of bk's posts over the past few months. He consistently shits on schools such as Loyola and Pepperdine. He is also extremely negative. His negativity is going to spoil any chance he has at a legal career, regardless of where he goes to school. In my mind, this makes him one of the worst trolls on this board.

I think enforcing scholarship stipulations is a sign of institutional integrity. I am proud of Loyola for keeping its scholarship students accountable.

Because I know you're actually serious:

1. If placing only 60% of your class into full time, bar required positions isn't a good enough reason to be negative about a school, then I don't know what is. Is this also something that makes you proud of Loyola?

2. Integrity? You're saying that a school where barely half of its students get full time jobs as lawyers, charges almost as much tuition as Harvard, and then gives the kids that do get scholarships a roughly 30% chance of keeping it is acting with integrity? Do you even know what that word means?

3. I'll just leave this here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... udy_finds/

You could also throw in the NYT article, but I don't care enough to look for it...

[JamMasterJ]

Looks like this thread has been derailed and I fear it will never get back on track...

Well what kind of split are you talking about?

Let's say 3.1-3.3/171-173, because I've seen some super high LSAT splitters get really lucky this year so it wouldn't apply to them as much.

I'm thinking the best approach is just to go to the highest ranked school.

But do ties make a difference? Would a GULC student in good standing and ties to cali be able to reasonably bid on california?

Ties make a difference, especially in a fairly insular market like California. That being said, UCLA is still going to be better for SoCal than a GULC or a Duke or a Cornell

[bk1]

Let's say 3.1-3.3/171-173, because I've seen some super high LSAT splitters get really lucky this year so it wouldn't apply to them as much.

I'm thinking the best approach is just to go to the highest ranked school.

But do ties make a difference? Would a GULC student in good standing and ties to cali be able to reasonably bid on california?

This is just the feeling I get from TLS so it could be totally offbase, but:

Could you aim for CA from a lower T14 if you have good enough grades? Yes, but you would need pretty good grades so it isn't like you are necessarily making it easier to find CA employment by taking let's say a lower T14 over USC/UCLA. This doesn't have so much to do with the schools but more to do with the fact that CA (moreso NorCal than SoCal) does not have many legal jobs in relation to the amount of people trying to get them.

The reason that I think going to a lower T14 is a better idea than USC/UCLA for a splitter is because for a splitter both will probably be at or close to sticker so biglaw/LRAP are you only ways out. The lower T14 makes it easier to get NYC if your grades are good enough for biglaw but not good enough for CA biglaw, whereas if you went to USC/UCLA you wouldn't really have that as a backup option. This does mean you have to be willing to sacrifice CA so that you can have an easier time paying back loans, but I think that is a worthwhile sacrifice to make.

On a side note, I do remember one lower T14 poster on here talking about CA not being that bad. It might have something to do with the fact that his T14 sent more kids to a broad area and thus the number of kids competing for CA at the school was not that high which made it easier to get a job in CA. I'm not entirely sure.

[Danteshek]

Loyola awards scholarships to entering students on the belief that recipients are top students. If the students then underperform those standards, the school should not further compensate them. They should be happy there are no clawbacks. None of the articles you cited suggest that Loyola is not transparent about this.

I suppose you think CEOs of failing companies should be generously compensated.

[bk1]

Loyola awards scholarships to entering students on the belief that recipients are top students. If the students then underperform those standard, the school should not further compensate them. They should be happy there are no clawbacks.

Loyola, like all other law schools, awards scholarships to entering students to draw them away from better schools because they want those students' LSAT/GPA numbers.

The standard is also absurd. You are giving people scholarships based on LSAT/GPA which only accounts for about 20% of law school grades. It isn't surprising that only about 30-40% of them keep scholarships that have a top 30% stip. These kids are not "top students," they just happen to have good LSAT/GPA numbers. The fact is that Loyola, and other schools that give stipulations, know this and it is unscrupulous of the schools to engage in this practice when they know for an absolute fact that if they place a top 30% stipulation that 60-70% of those kids won't be renewing their scholarship.

[Danteshek]

Entering students at Loyola understand the terms of their scholarships. It is far from unscrupulous for an excellent school like Loyola to incentivize excellent students to attend. In fact, I consider stipulations to be a "best practice" because it gives talented students a reason to work hard instead of skating by. It is also a fair practice because it makes funds available for the best continuing students.

I also disagree with the notion that a significant number of Loyola students turn down other schools that are objectively "better." As far as I'm concerned, Berkeley and Stanford are the only schools in California that are objectively better than Loyola.

[bk1]

As far as I'm concerned, Berkeley and Stanford are the only schools in California that are objectively better than Loyola.

Sometimes it is ridiculously hard to take you seriously. I'd recommend you lay off the crack pipe.

[09042014]

When does Denteshek do OCI?

[Bobeo]

Loyola awards scholarships to entering students on the belief that recipients are top students. If the students then underperform those standards, the school should not further compensate them. They should be happy there are no clawbacks. None of the articles you cited suggest that Loyola is not transparent about this.

I suppose you think CEOs of failing companies should be generously compensated.

Your point would be valid if Loyola didn't grade on a curve. Since they do, some students that are "top students" will inevitably get less than stellar grades.

The curve is what makes stipulations unfair. Not the stipulations themselves necessarily.

[glitter178]

Entering students at Loyola understand the terms of their scholarships. It is far from unscrupulous for an excellent school like Loyola to incentivize excellent students to attend. In fact, I consider stipulations to be a "best practice" because it gives talented students a reason to work hard instead of skating by. It is also a fair practice because it makes funds available for the best continuing students.

I also disagree with the notion that a significant number of Loyola students turn down other schools that are objectively "better." As far as I'm concerned, Berkeley and Stanford are the only schools in California that are objectively better than Loyola.

seriously dood?