Top Law Schools

I have a 159, with a 3.68 and good softs, LORs, and a good personal statement. However, I do not know where to ED to this cycle. Would ND be a bad option? Any advice would be great!

I wouldnt ED.

At all? Why is that?

Because its usually a binding agreement, and your LSAT isnt that strong, so youre going to end up getting stuck at a school with no money when you could potentially go to a slightly lower ranked school with money that has almost identical placement stats.

Did you look through LSN? A quick look at the last three years at ND shows no non-urm acceptances under a 160. Are you a urm?

At all? Why is that?

ND at sticker can be risky, with ND not being as much of a biglaw feeder as it was (23% I think?). This depends on your debt aversion though.

I am not a URM, and I am not too debt averse. I just wonder what the best ranked school I can get into with my numbers and possibly ED.

Where do you want to practice ultimately?

I would prefer either the midwest or the south.

I would just blanket the Midwest/South t25-t50 without ed'ing necessarily. Im thinking schools like W&L, IU-B, SMU etc. See about $$$ to each.

bport hopeful wrote:Because its usually a binding agreement, and your LSAT isnt that strong, so youre going to end up getting stuck at a school with no money when you could potentially go to a slightly lower ranked school with money that has almost identical placement stats.

TCR

ED is usually only worthwhile if you are a marginal candidate at a T14 and you are willing to pay sticker. You have no shot at the T14 with your current stats, so it doesn't make sense.

Do I really have a shot at any of those? So far, I have applied to W&L, Loyola-Chicago, and Case Western.

Id think you have a lock on Case Western. W&L is a bigger reach. With CWRU, be advised you are pretty much locked to Ohio, and from what I understand, it plays second fiddle to OSU in the ohio market (which I also have heard is overcrowded). With money it wouldnt be a bad idea.

CPM723 wrote:I am not a URM, and I am not too debt averse. I just wonder what the best ranked school I can get into with my numbers and possibly ED.

In most cases, going to the best school you can get into is a bad idea.

Why is that?

Because taking on huge amounts of debt at the best school you get into isnt better than going for cheap to a school with only marginally worse placement statistics

Also, this is bad advice

top30man wrote:I would just blanket the Midwest/South t25-t50 without ed'ing necessarily. Im thinking schools like W&L, IU-B, SMU etc. See about $$$ to each.

You need to apply to some TTs as well. Your LSAT is just simply not going to do you any favors in the top tier. I got dinged at IUB with a 166.

bport hopeful wrote:Because taking on huge amounts of debt at the best school you get into isnt better than going for cheap to a school with only marginally worse placement statistics

Also, this is bad advice

top30man wrote:I would just blanket the Midwest/South t25-t50 without ed'ing necessarily. Im thinking schools like W&L, IU-B, SMU etc. See about $$$ to each.

You need to apply to some TTs as well. Your LSAT is just simply not going to do you any favors in the top tier. I got dinged at IUB with a 166.

If the placement difference isn't just marginal it is absolutely worth swallowing the debt to go to the best school you can.

Also, any particular reason you're attracted to the midwest/south?

If you really want ND, I'd say go ahead and ED there. Maybe you could end up on the waitlist.

Why don't you take a year off and really study for the lsat (8-10 hours a day). Nobody like to hear the words "take a year off," but it could really help you. If you are at a 159, you could really improve your score with doing so.

I go to school in the midwest and live in the south. While I have considered taking a year off, I do not think I will do it. I have no desire for biglaw. I want to become an ADA after law school. I of course am applying to some 2nd tier schools, I have no doubts about the quality of my score, and know that I am not t-14 bound. However, would Loyola-Chicago be out of reach?

Don't ED. Either go to the cheapest regional school you can find in a small market or don't go at all.

Actually if you really want to know the truth, retake.

CPM723 wrote:I go to school in the midwest and live in the south. While I have considered taking a year off, I do not think I will do it. I have no desire for biglaw. I want to become an ADA after law school. I of course am applying to some 2nd tier schools, I have no doubts about the quality of my score, and know that I am not t-14 bound. However, would Loyola-Chicago be out of reach?

Why would you want to go to a TTT in such a saturated market? With your numbers I would at least shoot for a region not so utterly flooded with fresh faced law grads looking to do anything to find a gig.
Look at Illinois on this list http://www.economicmodeling.com/2011/06 ... ef-23949-1

L_SATire wrote:

bport hopeful wrote:Because taking on huge amounts of debt at the best school you get into isnt better than going for cheap to a school with only marginally worse placement statistics

Also, this is bad advice

top30man wrote:I would just blanket the Midwest/South t25-t50 without ed'ing necessarily. Im thinking schools like W&L, IU-B, SMU etc. See about $$$ to each.

You need to apply to some TTs as well. Your LSAT is just simply not going to do you any favors in the top tier. I got dinged at IUB with a 166.

If the placement difference isn't just marginal it is absolutely worth swallowing the debt to go to the best school you can.

This is only true if the best school you can get into is in the top 20, and this isnt the case.

You don't have a chance at ND, ED or not, unless your GPA is north of 3.8

Retake

bport hopeful wrote:

L_SATire wrote:

bport hopeful wrote:Because taking on huge amounts of debt at the best school you get into isnt better than going for cheap to a school with only marginally worse placement statistics

Also, this is bad advice

top30man wrote:I would just blanket the Midwest/South t25-t50 without ed'ing necessarily. Im thinking schools like W&L, IU-B, SMU etc. See about $$$ to each.

You need to apply to some TTs as well. Your LSAT is just simply not going to do you any favors in the top tier. I got dinged at IUB with a 166.

If the placement difference isn't just marginal it is absolutely worth swallowing the debt to go to the best school you can.

This is only true if the best school you can get into is in the top 20, and this isnt the case.

I'm pretty sure that in the event that placement is better, even outside of the top 20 you should swallow the debt. It makes the difference of what market you'll ultimately end up in. Of course, this doesn't factor in as much since CPM doesn't want biglaw. If he did, it absolutely would. You can't deny that.

L_SATire wrote: I'm pretty sure that in the event that placement is better, even outside of the top 20 you should swallow the debt. It makes the difference of what market you'll ultimately end up in. Of course, this doesn't factor in as much since CPM doesn't want biglaw. If he did, it absolutely would. You can't deny that.

Im super surprised that this was only your second post, considering all the wisdom in it.

OP, going to law school is a financial decision. You need to do some cost benefit analysis.

Scenario:
School A is ranked 40ish
School B is ranked 60ish

School A places 20% of its students in big law
School B places 15% of its students in big law

School A is going to cost you 200k+ to attend
School B is going to cost you 35k to attend

You should go to school B despite slightly worse ranking and placement statistics.



These numbers are totally made up obviously, but the idea remains.