IU v. UIUC Forum

[CanadianWolf]

I doubt that it is too late. Apply to see what opportunities develop this cycle.

[thexfactor]

Institute of the Bill of Rights at Wm. & Mary Law School. OP wants to do civil rights work which primarily focuses on constitutional rights. OP is not seeking biglaw. Also a 164/3.9 with demonstrated interest & work experience in civil rights should receive a scholarship award.

P.S. It means serious. I think the other poster asked if I was serious about recommending W&M because if you achieve a higher LSAT score, you would be a solid T-14 law school candidate with increased job placement opportunities.

with all due respect, just because he is seeking PI style work doesn't mean that it is easy to get. The good PI jobs are just as hard to get as compared to biglaw. Going to a top school like UVA still helps tremendously in gaining a top PI job.

[romothesavior]

Institute of the Bill of Rights at Wm. & Mary Law School. OP wants to do civil rights work which primarily focuses on constitutional rights. OP is not seeking biglaw. Also a 164/3.9 with demonstrated interest & work experience in civil rights should receive a scholarship award.

P.S. It means serious. I think the other poster asked if I was serious about recommending W&M because if you achieve a higher LSAT score, you would be a solid T-14 law school candidate with increased job placement opportunities.

No, that is not what I meant.

I meant are you, a current law student, seriously advocating going to a school based on "specialty" bullshit? Terrible advice.

OP, in general it is a very bad idea to pick a law school based on curriculum. Just about any top school is going to offer you classes in whatever it is you are looking for. There are some exceptions to this general rule, but more often than not employers will not care. They aren't going to be more impressed by a Bill of Rights scholar from W&M than they are by a similarly situated student at another school.

Also, it sounds lke CW has gotten you all worked up about the possibility of international law. Please read this article (written by the former dean of admissions at UChicago) before you take the leap:

http://www.annaivey.com/iveyfiles/2008/ ... e_the_hype

[romothesavior]

My advice OP, and I meant this sincerely and respectfully, is to do some more homework before you go to law school. You sound very enthusiastic about the law, which is very good, but you seem to lack knowledge of what exactly the practice of law entails. I think a lot of these misconceptions are likely fueled by rumors, the media, and especially law schools themselves. For example, Grizz is spot on when he says that most "constitutional lawyers" are doing s. 1983 plaintiff's work. Do you know what this means, and is that something you'd want to do? And when you say "civil rights" work, what exactly are you referring to? Public interest work of some sort?

You should know that few people (see: almost zero) are doing "constitutional law" or "civil rights law" where they go before the Supreme Court and argue landmark cases, or travel the world helping third world nations develop their constitutions. Schools fuel these myths that you can go work for the Hague or doing cutting-edge policy work all over the world or arguing cases for the ACLU, but this is not the reality for the vast, vast majority of lawyers. Who knows? Maybe you could be the one (you do have some background experience it looks like), but if not, you better be prepared to face that reality.

I would recommend perusing TLS, reading articles online (not law school websites), and most importantly, talking to some practicing attorneys and getting their opinions. Going to law school is a big decision, and you want to make sure it is the right one for you. I certainly am not trying to curtail your enthusiasm or talk you out of it. I just want you to make sure you know exactly what it is you are doing before you take the plunge.

Good luck to you.

[ColtsFan88]

I studied and took a year off and made a jump from the IUB/UIUC range to possible T10. If you made a similar jump in LSAT scores you would be looking at full rides at CCN and probably YHS. You should really consider retaking and applying next year.

[biglaw$]

OP: William & Mary has a constitutional law curriculum that may be of interest to you.

lulz

[CanadianWolf]

I have no idea what romothesavior, a law student, is writing about concerning "international law". Also, I am not a law student. OP much of what the other 1Ls & OLs, & some 2Ls apparently, post are "echo chamber" posts that do not apply to your interests or to your situation.

P.S. Thanks for the PM. I agree !

[soj]

I have no idea what romothesavior, a law student, is writing about concerning "international law". Also, I am not a law student. OP much of what the other 1Ls & OLs, & some 2Ls apparently, post are "echo chamber" posts that do not apply to your interests or to your situation.

How are yours better informed? Many of your posts just parrot second-tier law school promotional materials.

[CanadianWolf]

No. My posts are written in response to questions asked & situations presented. With some real-world, post law school experience, I suspect that your views may broaden as well.

[northside]

My advice OP, and I meant this sincerely and respectfully, is to do some more homework before you go to law school. You sound very enthusiastic about the law, which is very good, but you seem to lack knowledge of what exactly the practice of law entails. I think a lot of these misconceptions are likely fueled by rumors, the media, and especially law schools themselves. For example, Grizz is spot on when he says that most "constitutional lawyers" are doing s. 1983 plaintiff's work. Do you know what this means, and is that something you'd want to do? And when you say "civil rights" work, what exactly are you referring to? Public interest work of some sort?

You should know that few people (see: almost zero) are doing "constitutional law" or "civil rights law" where they go before the Supreme Court and argue landmark cases, or travel the world helping third world nations develop their constitutions. Schools fuel these myths that you can go work for the Hague or doing cutting-edge policy work all over the world or arguing cases for the ACLU, but this is not the reality for the vast, vast majority of lawyers. Who knows? Maybe you could be the one (you do have some background experience it looks like), but if not, you better be prepared to face that reality.

I would recommend perusing TLS, reading articles online (not law school websites), and most importantly, talking to some practicing attorneys and getting their opinions. Going to law school is a big decision, and you want to make sure it is the right one for you. I certainly am not trying to curtail your enthusiasm or talk you out of it. I just want you to make sure you know exactly what it is you are doing before you take the plunge.

Good luck to you.

Why is everyone on here so condescending? I'm well aware of what I'm getting into. I currently work in civil rights law--and not just filing and answering phones. I know what it entails and I really enjoy the litigating that I've helped with even if it is Just 1983 plaintiffs complaints. I'm aware that not every civil rights lawyer works for the ACLU. My boss doesn't (though he used to). My passion above all else is helping people. Whether it is the inmates at my current job, the South Africans I lived with, or someone who can't afford an attorney. I've been around the block. I realize I did not get a 170+. Thats great that you all did, but to be honest, the people on this site make me completely okay with not going to HYS and in fact make me second guess whether I want to in the least. We all have a different place in society. Mine doesn't revolve around money or fame (including the recognition of solving some vast world conflict but if I can help--hey I'm happy). I love law, but most importantly I love how law empowers people. I am one of those kids that reads law reviews for the hell of it. I'd rather talk about Rawls, Dworkin, Sunstein, or footnote four than Sandusky or the NBA lockout. That is just who I am, regardless of my LSAT score. I'm proud of my 164. My undergraduate schools average is a 150. I might be straight and white and therefore not a URM but I'll be the first person from my high school to attend law school in 10 years so I think I am doing okay.

And for the record I never said anything about ConLaw or SCOTUS cases. And yeah, I've thought about going to school for public policy, thats what my personal statement is about. I've thought about all of these things. Hell, I moved all the way to Qwa Qwa, South Africa because I thought that I wanted to be an aid worker and then I realized that no matter how many aid workers we send, or civil rights attorneys we crack out none of this matters without examining the law. A JD is not a means to an end of prestige for me.

I'm not trying to be mean, but ever since reading this board its been bothering me.

[CanadianWolf]

soj is an OL & romo is a 2L at WashUStL seeking a position with State Farm Insurance Company & he has small, local government summer work experience, according to his prior posts.

[soj]

No. My posts are written in response to questions asked & situations presented. With some real-world, post law school experience, I suspect that your views may broaden as well.

All that experience and your advice is to consider a special program in con law (con law of all fields, for which basically every top school has top professors) at a lower-ranked school over a higher-ranked school that would give OP a better chance at landing one of the scarce jobs in the field?

I never said you didn't respond to questions asked and situations presented. I'm just saying your response sucks. No need to wave your age and experience like a defense mechanism.

[CanadianWolf]

How does an OL even have a clue ? And I am just offering context. Anybody can suggest retaking & applying to T-14 law schools.

[soj]

How does an OL even have a clue ?

It doesn't take a genius to find out what the legal market's like. And your previous posts don't exactly inspire confidence, so ease it with the "I know better because I'm old" line.

You did have some sound advice in this thread, though:

Best course of action is to apply to 10 or 12 law schools this cycle to reveal your options. If you don't like the results, then consider retaking the LSAT.

With respect to your career goal of working in the field of civil rights law, I suspect that biglaw positions are more easily attained. If you want to work for a public interest firm or a small law firm, then getting substantial scholarship money should be a primary concern in order to be able to afford those career choices. There are several Tier One law schools that should offer generous scholarships to one with work experience and a 3.9/164 numbers combination.

Consider: WashUStL, Wash & Lee, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Alabama, Minnesota, Wake Forest, ASU, Colorado, SMU, & a couple of reaches. If you don't like the resulting options, then retake & reapply next cycle. But, it's important to know your actual options prior to making a decision; and those options will only be clear if you apply this cycle & examine the outcome.

P.S. If applications are down substantially this cycle, then recent history cannot be viewed as an accurate predictor of your results.

[romothesavior]

No. My posts are written in response to questions asked & situations presented. With some real-world, post law school experience, I suspect that your views may broaden as well.

All that experience and your advice is to consider a special program in con law (con law of all fields, for which basically every top school has top professors) at a lower-ranked school over a higher-ranked school that would give OP a better chance at landing one of the scarce jobs in the field?

I never said you didn't respond to questions asked and situations presented. I'm just saying your response sucks. No need to wave your age and experience like a defense mechanism.

+1.

soj is an OL & romo is a 2L at WashUStL seeking a position with State Farm Insurance Company & he has small, local government summer work experience, according to his prior posts.

lol

[CanadianWolf]

If my post is inaccurate regarding your prior posts, then feel free to post a correction.

[biglaw$]

suggest retaking & applying to T-14 law schools.

or...go to W&M because you can study mad con laws bra!

[stratocophic]

No. My posts are written in response to questions asked & situations presented. With some real-world, post law school experience, I suspect that your views may broaden as well.

All that experience and your advice is to consider a special program in con law (con law of all fields, for which basically every top school has top professors) at a lower-ranked school over a higher-ranked school that would give OP a better chance at landing one of the scarce jobs in the field?

I never said you didn't respond to questions asked and situations presented. I'm just saying your response sucks. No need to wave your age and experience like a defense mechanism.

+1.

soj is an OL & romo is a 2L at WashUStL seeking a position with State Farm Insurance Company & he has small, local government summer work experience, according to his prior posts.

lol

rofl, brother. gotta start small and spin it into dat BIGALLSTATEINSURANCEDEFENSE in a few years, amirite?

[Grizz]

Romo you gotta get a job with Progressive so you can hit on the progressive chick.

[crumpetsandtea]

Not exactly sure how I'm going to land a job that will save me any money with a double philosophy major...but I see what all of you are saying.

I found an office job with a PoliSci/Philo double major, am currently living at home. In ~9 months I've saved a little over 6K. It's possible. TBF though it's because my parents are generous enough to let me live at home without needing to pay rent, bills, groceries, etc.

Also:

TLS is replete with examples of posters who took a year off, studied hard for the LSAT, and scored significantly higher. All of them would tell you that the opportunities that became available as a result of retaking made the decision to wait a year infinitely worth it....I have never heard a single person say they regret taking a year off and re-taking. On the other hand, I've heard dozens say the opposite (including myself)...A few LSAT points could mean tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money, or even could be the difference between graduating employed vs. graduating unemployed. I know it is the last thing in the entire world you want to do, but it is absolutely worth considering.

I am one of these examples. I had 8K per year to ND offer last year, Now, I could end up somewhere awesome.

I am also one of these examples. I went 168 --> 176, and I know Jam made a similar jump. Even if you did 164 --> 172, you're looking at a 3.9/172, which will put you in good shape for $$ at NU and admittance to Chi.

ETA: Regarding you saying the last thing you want to do is study -- I retook my 168 in June after studying for 6 months straight and got a 169. Did I want to say "fuck this shit, this makes me depressed" and not bother retaking for a THIRD time? Fuck yeah. But I retook again and it was SO fucking worth it.

[romothesavior]

Alright OP, you do you. Didn't mean to be condescending (and if you think TLS is condescending, go check out JDU, or I could even introduce you to mtal or MrAnon). I just find people who go to a professional school (which law school is) for civil rights, international law, and to be "empowered" quite entertaining and misguided, especially since 95% of the people who say this stuff can't even articulate what it is that tickles their fancy about it. But its your choice, and if you want to make it, then by all means. I hope you are empowered by Chief Justice Marshall's riveting legal prose in Marbury v. Madison and by the countless slip and fall/railroad injury/milk processing plant cases you read.

Also sorry to hear that people encouraging you to strive to do better for yourself (by re-taking and actually putting yourself in the best possible position for success) is condescending. I didn't get a 170. Grizz didn't get a 170. Most of the people on this site didn't get one. The overwhelming majority don't go to HYS, or even a T14. No one said you have to do that to be successful. But if a few LSAT points could double (or triple) your job prospects or earn you tens of thousands of extra dollars, I (we) think you owe it to yourself to go for it.

Anyways, I gotta go. Me and Aaron Rodgers have gotta go do some Discount Doublechecks.

[Grizz]

+1 to Romo.

If you go to law school, have fun learning about about barges and what exactly chicken is.

[ahduth]

Right. And to the extent that this impacts rank or, more importantly, job prospects, OP should be concerned.

I assume you go to or have gone to law school, and therefore know that teaching faculty or the quality of their instruction is not necessarily impacted by fudging admissions numbers. In the long run, this may affect what professors stay or what professors UIUC is able to bring in (though even then, not so much), but I doubt any of OP's concerns with UIUC should be with "being taught in an environment in which the administration has perpetuated a culture of fraud and deception."

OP's concerns should be with job prospects, period. Changing the italicized to "obtaining a job" might make that statement make more sense.

All I'm saying is that UIUC seems to be an institute of repeated corruption. Just a coincidence that their name keeps coming up in news stories about a high-ranking administrative official who's neck deep in some corrupt or fraudulent activity? Who knows. Maybe professors take bribes on the side to bump up certain exam scores. Wouldn't surprise me one iota. It's obviously a school where ethics don't seem to matter much.

No offense, but you seem to be largely ignorant of the fact that institutionalized corruption is the official form of government of both the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. I'm not exactly clear how much UIUC's alumni base is fazed by the recent divulgences in the news, but I don't see anyone calling for large scale reform in the state, outside of federal prosecutors.

That being said, don't expect Chicago law of any kind - T14 want that market. Hell, I'm going to try for it from NYU.

The retake advice is also credited - I should've retaken, and I pipped through the 99th percentile.

[Helmholtz]

No offense, but you seem to be largely ignorant of the fact that institutionalized corruption is the official form of government of both the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. I'm not exactly clear how much UIUC's alumni base is fazed by the recent divulgences in the news, but I don't see anyone calling for large scale reform in the state, outside of federal prosecutors.

Oh, yeah, the state in general is pretty used to people at the top being corrupt as hell. But what are you going to do? Move because some of the officials are crooked? Nah. But you don't think that the legal field in general is aware that other law schools that significantly feed into Chicago (e.g. many of the T14 and beyond) aren't suffering the same scandals as UIUC?

I'm just saying that if I was in hiring, I would wonder what type of student chooses to go to UIUC after it's been rocked by scandal after scandal. Unethical people can be huge liabilities, and from what I've seen UIUC doesn't give a shit about ethics. I really don't think that it's a coincidence that the UIUC name keeps coming up in news about law school fraud or corruption. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a general attitude the pervades the school.

[ahduth]

No offense, but you seem to be largely ignorant of the fact that institutionalized corruption is the official form of government of both the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. I'm not exactly clear how much UIUC's alumni base is fazed by the recent divulgences in the news, but I don't see anyone calling for large scale reform in the state, outside of federal prosecutors.

Oh, yeah, the state in general is pretty used to people at the top being corrupt as hell. But what are you going to do? Move because some of the officials are crooked? Nah. But you don't think that the legal field in general is aware that other law schools that significantly feed into Chicago (e.g. many of the T14 and beyond) aren't suffering the same scandals as UIUC?

I'm just saying that if I was in hiring, I would wonder what type of student chooses to go to UIUC after it's been rocked by scandal after scandal. Unethical people can be huge liabilities, and from what I've seen UIUC doesn't give a shit about ethics. I really don't think that it's a coincidence that the UIUC name keeps coming up in news about law school fraud or corruption. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a general attitude the pervades the school.

I really think it depends on where that application is filed. While Chicago big law is going to be hammered with in- and out-of-state T14 apps, Illinois government lives and breathes UIUC (afaik - please correct me if I'm wrong here).

To the point, I suppose, I don't see IU-B in this picture at all. I wouldn't personally go to UIUC, but I don't think they're toast in terms of hiring. If you go to IU, I'd plan on working in Indiana.

edit: grammar