Rutgers-Newark vs. Seton Hall (with $) Forum

[Grizz]

But seriously, your assumption that not being in the top 10 - 25 % = failure is absurd. I guess 75% of their students each year just join the bread lines, huh? Get real.

If you have $150k debt and miss out on biglaw, it pretty much is.

[20130312]

I didn't say the other 75% would be unemployed. Let me ask you, what do you think those people are doing since they aren't getting biglaw, clerkships, or PI positions?

I know, I know! Midlaw, m i right?

[iceicebaby]

Lol... I will stfu in my own thread I guess. I am just amazed at the fact that many of you seem to think law school isn't worth it for me and still am waiting to hear WHY exactly other than "these schools are dumps", etc. So until someone ACTUALLY explains why Rutgers and Seton Hall are worthless to go to, I guess I will just let this die.

I think law school itself may actually be for you. You seem like you really want to go, you've talked to attorneys, and you've worked as a paralegal so you presumably understand the work involved. The reason people are telling you not to go to Seton Hall or Rutgers are because of the job prospects coming out of law school. I think that has been laid out for you many times. The investment does not make financial sense. If you really want to go to law school, great. These are just not good investments. I think we've explained this thoroughly.

Also, a JD/MBA is not a good idea for the majority of students. It is unlikely to open any doors that would not already be open, especially from these schools. It is a good move for some people, but it is something you should really have a plan for, not just "Oh I should get an MBA cause I like business." The fact that you are touting the MBA and saying "Oh its cool guyz, I'm getting my JD/MBA" just shows everyone that you haven't done your homework and do not have a clue what you are getting into.

LOL I said that jokingly. As you can tell from my profile, I've been around for a while on here and have obviously been reading up on everything. I know the "don't worry, imma gonna do the JD/MBA" comment always stirs people up. Relax.

With that said, I get that Seton Hall or Rutgers may be a bad investment for some people. But can you really say that Rutgers (I'm leaving Seton Hall out because I have since cooled on them a bit) at $23k/year is really that bad of an investment? They have a 95% employment rate 6-9 months after graduation. Anecdotal evidence is not good to go by, and it seems that many of you think that not being in the top 10% to 25% means that you're going to fail from these schools. I feel like this is such an over-exaggeration and have not yet seen anyone say anything to show me that a gross or even worrisome amount of graduates are unemployed or in the private sector making less than what I make now (~$40k-50k/year). PLEASE, just point me to useful info (I already know about LST obviously) about these schools, not "oh well my friends at T30s can't get jobs, so you're definitely not going to be able to" types of assertions.

[iceicebaby]

But seriously, your assumption that not being in the top 10 - 25 % = failure is absurd. I guess 75% of their students each year just join the bread lines, huh? Get real.

If you have $150k debt and miss out on biglaw, it pretty much is.

Hmm $23k/year from Rutgers-N with even the max CoL loan would be ~$120k. This is assuming I get no help from my family nor any scholarship award. It is debt, but I sincerely doubt this is insurmountable even without having a BigLaw job. Like I said, I have friends with well over $200k in debt from college and they are doing just fine with the payments even with their entry-level salaries.

[iceicebaby]

Lol... I will stfu in my own thread I guess. I am just amazed at the fact that many of you seem to think law school isn't worth it for me and still am waiting to hear WHY exactly other than "these schools are dumps", etc. So until someone ACTUALLY explains why Rutgers and Seton Hall are worthless to go to, I guess I will just let this die.

You have less than a 10% chance to get biglaw and a 20-25% chance to to make over 100k which is what you need to pay off your debt. Look at the sticky at the top of the forum. And according to LST only 64% of people are reporting salary. Does a 75-90% chance of failure sound like good odds to you? I think this has already been explained but you don't want to believe it.

I don't know shit about business school but I'm fairly sure working as a paralegal isn't what MBA programs are looking for....

You had me at "I'm fairly sure working as a paralegal isn't". Way to expose your ignorance there, buddy. I have completed post-grad coursework in finance as well as 3 years WE within a corporate/business law field, so try again.

But seriously, your assumption that not being in the top 10 - 25 % = failure is absurd. I guess 75% of their students each year just join the bread lines, huh? Get real.

You said you were working as a paralegal before.... doesn't matter what field you're working in, you're in a support role. Either way it doesn't sound like you have the type of work experience business schools usually look for.

I didn't say the other 75% would be unemployed. Let me ask you, what do you think those people are doing since they aren't getting biglaw, clerkships, or PI positions?

Don't speak about b-school. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to that.

[Grizz]

But seriously, your assumption that not being in the top 10 - 25 % = failure is absurd. I guess 75% of their students each year just join the bread lines, huh? Get real.

If you have $150k debt and miss out on biglaw, it pretty much is.

Hmm $23k/year from Rutgers-N with even the max CoL loan would be ~$120k. This is assuming I get no help from my family nor any scholarship award. It is debt, but I sincerely doubt this is insurmountable even without having a BigLaw job. Like I said, I have friends with well over $200k in debt from college and they are doing just fine with the payments even with their entry-level salaries.

If you live like a pauper you can manage $200k fresh out of college, just don't have kids or get a house or buy anything nice.

When the most likely non-biglaw outcome is about $40k-$50k, enjoy $120k debt.

Go to Rutgers, drop out if you lose your scholarship.

[iceicebaby]

But seriously, your assumption that not being in the top 10 - 25 % = failure is absurd. I guess 75% of their students each year just join the bread lines, huh? Get real.

If you have $150k debt and miss out on biglaw, it pretty much is.

Hmm $23k/year from Rutgers-N with even the max CoL loan would be ~$120k. This is assuming I get no help from my family nor any scholarship award. It is debt, but I sincerely doubt this is insurmountable even without having a BigLaw job. Like I said, I have friends with well over $200k in debt from college and they are doing just fine with the payments even with their entry-level salaries.

If you live like a pauper you can manage $200k fresh out of college, just don't have kids or get a house or buy anything nice.

When the most likely non-biglaw outcome is about $40k-$50k, enjoy $120k debt.

Go to Rutgers, drop out if you lose your scholarship.

Wait so you think that if you're not BigLaw, you're likely going to be earning $40k-$50k? Show me where that stat comes from and you might have me convinced not to go.

[Nelson]

Wait so you think that if you're not BigLaw, you're likely going to be earning $40k-$50k? Show me where that stat comes from and you might have me convinced not to go.

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

It comes from the NALP. Do you read anything? Or are you just hoping to create reality via magical thinking?

[20130312]

Wait so you think that if you're not BigLaw, you're likely going to be earning $40k-$50k? Show me where that stat comes from and you might have me convinced not to go.

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

It comes from the NALP. Do you read anything? Or are you just hoping to create reality via magical thinking?

Does this mean he's not going?

[Grizz]

Wait so you think that if you're not BigLaw, you're likely going to be earning $40k-$50k? Show me where that stat comes from and you might have me convinced not to go.

Also keep in mind that the left hump is a lot larger due to underreporting (lower salaries and unemployment skew towards underreporting). Also keep in mind that the area of the graph that is from about $100k to $160k is largely represented by biglaw/NLJ250 firms in smaller markets.

ETA: 2010 graph

[iceicebaby]

Wait so you think that if you're not BigLaw, you're likely going to be earning $40k-$50k? Show me where that stat comes from and you might have me convinced not to go.

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

It comes from the NALP. Do you read anything? Or are you just hoping to create reality via magical thinking?

This graph encompasses the entire class of 2010 and includes all sectors of employment. How is this helpful to me? It tells me nothing about the schools I am looking at nor about how these numbers might look in 2013 or beyond. All it tells me is that it is not as rosy as it once was and that there are a good deal of people in both ends of the spectrum, which we all know by default.

You should have gone with this graph: http://www.nalp.org/salarycurve_classof2010#curve2

It at least shows you what you can expect for firm jobs. I expect to at least go for a firm job of some kind and have ins at the ones I already worked for.

[20130312]

.i

[Grizz]

This graph encompasses the entire class of 2010 and includes all sectors of employment. How is this helpful to me? It tells me nothing about the schools I am looking at nor about how these numbers might look in 2013 or beyond. All it tells me is that it is not as rosy as it once was and that there are a good deal of people in both ends of the spectrum, which we all know by default.

Why is it bad that it includes all sectors of employment? Have you earned the right to be picky when only 68% of grads nowadays are getting jobs that require bar passage?

The graph has looked like this for a long time (basically since the adoption of the Cravath model - see http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_le ... avath.html), and the legal market is stagnant with no signs of recovery, in case you haven't been paying attention.

Here's a solid NY Times article where all the midsize firms went - http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/09/busin ... shing.html

[iceicebaby]

This graph encompasses the entire class of 2010 and includes all sectors of employment. How is this helpful to me? It tells me nothing about the schools I am looking at

Since your choices are two of the lowest ranked schools in an oversaturated market, assume that the data for your school is worse.

Two of the lowest ranked in which market? Surely not NJ and NY? I guess you haven't heard of any of the schools ranked lower than them (NYLS, Hofstra, St. John's, CUNY, Brooklyn, Touro, etc.) in the NY market and oh, wait, I guess Rutgers and Seton Hall aren't well-known and well-respected in Jersey, too.

[Grizz]

This graph encompasses the entire class of 2010 and includes all sectors of employment. How is this helpful to me? It tells me nothing about the schools I am looking at

Since your choices are two of the lowest ranked schools in an oversaturated market, assume that the data for your school is worse.

Two of the lowest ranked in which market? Surely not NJ and NY? I guess you haven't heard of any of the schools ranked lower than them (NYLS, Hofstra, St. John's, CUNY, Brooklyn, Touro, etc.) in the NY market and oh, wait, I guess Rutgers and Seton Hall aren't well-known and well-respected in Jersey, too.

Go read the NJ OCI thread this year about how NJ biglaw firms are slobbing the knobs of people who go to top schools (Columbia, NYU, etc.)

[Nelson]

Two of the lowest ranked in which market? Surely not NJ and NY? I guess you haven't heard of any of the schools ranked lower than them (NYLS, Hofstra, St. John's, CUNY, Brooklyn, Touro, etc.) in the NY market and oh, wait, I guess Rutgers and Seton Hall aren't well-known and well-respected in Jersey, too.

This is a terrible foundation for an argument. Just because there are schools ranked lower than Rutgers in USNWR doesn't mean Rutgers has good employment prospects.

Why are so many people trying to convince themselves that paying for a Rutgers law degree (in either the North Jersey or South Jersey flavor) is a good idea?

[iceicebaby]

This graph encompasses the entire class of 2010 and includes all sectors of employment. How is this helpful to me? It tells me nothing about the schools I am looking at nor about how these numbers might look in 2013 or beyond. All it tells me is that it is not as rosy as it once was and that there are a good deal of people in both ends of the spectrum, which we all know by default.

Why is it bad that it includes all sectors of employment? Have you earned the right to be picky when only 68% of grads nowadays are getting jobs that require bar passage?

The graph has looked like this for a long time (basically since the adoption of the Cravath model - see http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_le ... avath.html), and the legal market is stagnant with no signs of recovery, in case you haven't been paying attention.

Here's a solid NY Times article where all the midsize firms went - http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/09/busin ... shing.html

That NY Times article is from 1987. So relevant. I work at a midsize firm and they are doing very well; like people, firms adapt to the times. They had to cut back like everyone a couple of years ago, but now they are expanding again. This is obviously a small case, but my point is that the fluctuating retraction/expansion trends have come and gone through the years and will continue to do so. These firms aren't any different than other companies in that respect. Apps are down this year big time (most since the year 2000) and I suspect that the ebb and flow is changing yet again as people are leaving the market for "greener" pastures. Fear is a genuine economic motivator, and it can cause gross fluctuations within any given market (i.e. the sharp increases in applications in 2008 - 2011 out of fear of unemployment/lack of other prospects followed by a sharp decrease this year out of fear of unemployment/undertaking debt). Being afraid usually leads you to follow the panicked mob to the exit door only to be trampled in the process, and the idea is to avoid that mentality.

[Grizz]

That NY Times article is from 1987. So relevant. I work at a midsize firm and they are doing very well; like people, firms adapt to the times. They had to cut back like everyone a couple of years ago, but now they are expanding again. This is obviously a small case, but my point is that the fluctuating retraction/expansion trends have come and gone through the years and will continue to do so. These firms aren't any different than other companies in that respect. Apps are down this year big time (most since the year 2000) and I suspect that the ebb and flow is changing yet again as people are leaving the market for "greener" pastures. Fear is a genuine economic motivator, and it can cause gross fluctuations within any given market (i.e. the sharp increases in applications in 2008 - 2011 out of fear of unemployment/lack of other prospects followed by a sharp decrease this year out of fear of unemployment/undertaking debt). Being afraid usually leads you to follow the panicked mob to the exit door only to be trampled in the process, and the idea is to avoid that mentality.

I feel stupider for having read this nonsensical psychobabble.

[romothesavior]

Dude, your willful ignorance is incredible. Let's break this chart down:

*As grizz said, that spike on the right side is way, way too big due to overreporting. The plurality of law students do NOT start at 160k. A very small percentage of law students get those jobs. Those jobs are almost all taken by students at top tier schools, specifically the T14. Also, almost every job over 100k (or even really about 90k) is an NLJ 250 firm. The two schools we're discussing here place ~10% of their graduates into NLJ 250 firms. So making 100k+ is very likely out for you.

*The chart shows that there are very, very few firms that pay in the 70-100k range. Firms that pay that much are few and far between, and they usually are mid-sized firms that only take 1-2 summer associates a year. These jobs are sometimes as hard to get as biglaw simply because of their rarity. Good luck finding one.

*The chart shows that most people are getting jobs in the 30-60 range. Again, as grizz pointed out, there is a significant reporting bias, so that hump on the left side should be far larger. Odds are that if you go to SH or Rutgers, you will get a law job somewhere, but it will almost certainly be in this hump.

And as I have told you before, ~65% of law school grads find full-time, JD-required jobs. So your odds of never being a lawyer are high.



Your rebuttal arguments are awful. First of all, this is data for all law grads. You are talking about going to two mediocre schools in an awful market. You can assume you and your classmates' outcomes will be worse. Second, you say this is outdated? LOL. The legal market has stagnated for the past few years, and if you ask any hiring partner, they'll tell you that it isn't going to dramatically improve anytime soon. I can tell you as a law student going through this hiring cycle at a much better school than Seton Hall or Rutgers, this graph represents my class's reality (it is actually way too rosy because there is no massive spike at zero). Third, your bullshit about fear and pressing on and all that is just stupid. How about a dose of reality? Being worried about the employment data doesn't make one a coward or a member of the "panicked mob." It makes one prudent and cautious. What a silly worldview you adhere to.

And finally, yes there are still midsized firms.The point is that there are less and less of them than there used to be. Law has become boom or bust for most people. That NYT article is more relevant now than ever because the recession hurt midsize firms more than anyone else. When I was going through OCI, you know what the midsize firms all touted? Their rarity and uniqueness. You know why? Cause there aren't many left.

You have data slapping in the face. You have charts slapping you in the face. You have articles from all sorts of newspapers and magazines slapping you in the face. You have law students, law professors, and practicing lawyers on TLS who would tell you in a hot second that you are making a mistake all slapping you in the face. But no no... they're all wrong, you're right. You with your three years of paralegal experience and wisdom about the legal market are right, all the hard data and countervailing opinions are wrong.

[iceicebaby]

That NY Times article is from 1987. So relevant. I work at a midsize firm and they are doing very well; like people, firms adapt to the times. They had to cut back like everyone a couple of years ago, but now they are expanding again. This is obviously a small case, but my point is that the fluctuating retraction/expansion trends have come and gone through the years and will continue to do so. These firms aren't any different than other companies in that respect. Apps are down this year big time (most since the year 2000) and I suspect that the ebb and flow is changing yet again as people are leaving the market for "greener" pastures. Fear is a genuine economic motivator, and it can cause gross fluctuations within any given market (i.e. the sharp increases in applications in 2008 - 2011 out of fear of unemployment/lack of other prospects followed by a sharp decrease this year out of fear of unemployment/undertaking debt). Being afraid usually leads you to follow the panicked mob to the exit door only to be trampled in the process, and the idea is to avoid that mentality.

I feel stupider for having read this nonsensical psychobabble.

A simple tl;dr would have sufficed. You don't have to try to "take me down pegs" every time you guys respond.

[romothesavior]

A simple tl;dr would have sufficed. You don't have to try to "take me down pegs" every time you guys respond.

I don't want to be insulting, because as I've said before, you seem like an alright guy. Probably someone I could hangout with and have a beer with. But you are saying stupid things that grizz and I have seen out of law students for years. Naive, ignorant, and misinformed things that 0Ls say to justify making the worst decisions of their lives. What you just said about being fearful and the panicked mob really was psychobabble. Being well-informed, considering the evidence and the accounts of current students, and then making a decision based on that isn't "panicked mob" behavior. Its prudent investing. Law school is an investment, and an expensive one at that. I'd think you'd want to be damn sure it will pay off.

[Odd Future Wolf Gang]

Damn, romo dropping knowledge HARD BODY up in this thread.

[iceicebaby]

Dude, your willful ignorance is incredible. Let's break this chart down:

*As grizz said, that spike on the right side is way, way too big due to overreporting. The plurality of law students do NOT start at 160k. A very small percentage of law students get those jobs. Those jobs are almost all taken by students at top tier schools, specifically the T14. Also, almost every job over 100k (or even really about 90k) is an NLJ 250 firm. The two schools we're discussing here place ~10% of their graduates into NLJ 250 firms. So making 100k+ is very likely out for you.

*The chart shows that there are very, very few firms that pay in the 70-100k range. Firms that pay that much are few and far between, and they usually are mid-sized firms that only take 1-2 summer associates a year. These jobs are sometimes as hard to get as biglaw simply because of their rarity. Good luck finding one.

*The chart shows that most people are getting jobs in the 30-60 range. Again, as grizz pointed out, there is a significant reporting bias, so that hump on the left side should be far larger. Odds are that if you go to SH or Rutgers, you will get a law job somewhere, but it will almost certainly be in this hump.

And as I have told you before, ~65% of law school grads find full-time, JD-required jobs. So your odds of never being a lawyer are high.



Your rebuttal arguments are awful. First of all, this is data for all law grads. You are talking about going to two mediocre schools in an awful market. You can assume you and your classmates' outcomes will be worse. Second, you say this is outdated? LOL. The legal market has stagnated for the past few years, and if you ask any hiring partner, they'll tell you that it isn't going to dramatically improve anytime soon. I can tell you as a law student going through this hiring cycle at a much better school than Seton Hall or Rutgers, this graph represents my class's reality (it is actually way too rosy because there is no massive spike at zero). Third, your bullshit about fear and pressing on and all that is just stupid. How about a dose of reality? Being worried about the employment data doesn't make one a coward or a member of the "panicked mob." It makes one prudent and cautious. What a silly worldview you adhere to.

And finally, yes there are still midsized firms.The point is that there are less and less of them than there used to be. Law has become boom or bust for most people. That NYT article is more relevant now than ever because the recession hurt midsize firms more than anyone else. When I was going through OCI, you know what the midsize firms all touted? Their rarity and uniqueness. You know why? Cause there aren't many left.

You have data slapping in the face. You have charts slapping you in the face. You have articles from all sorts of newspapers and magazines slapping you in the face. You have law students, law professors, and practicing lawyers on TLS who would tell you in a hot second that you are making a mistake all slapping you in the face. But no no... they're all wrong, you're right. You with your three years of paralegal experience and wisdom about the legal market are right, all the hard data and countervailing opinions are wrong.

OK, that's it. I'm not going to law school now. Time to bust out the resume and change career paths entirely. I suppose the past 3 years have been for nothing.

Just a curious question, what would you say if I got $35k/year scholly at Quinnipiac (which I did)? Would going there for next to nothing or about $30k total tops still be a bad idea? Or is your bottom line basically "if you don't score in the 90-something percentile on the LSAT, you shouldn't go to law school at all"? At what point, if ever, is it worth it for you guys?

[20130312]

At what point, if ever, is it worth it for you guys?

T14 or bust

[iceicebaby]

At what point, if ever, is it worth it for you guys?

T14 or bust

And if your GPA or LSAT score will NEVER get you there because you can't really improve them much further? Don't go?