Top Law Schools

Jimbola wrote:Would commute to both schools (20 minutes to Hofstra; 45 minutes to St. John's)
$25K from Hofstra
$22,500 from St. Johns
Interested in City DA office

T-14 or gtfo ppl I already know you think these are terrible options.

FTFY.

If you're amenable to working in the Nassau or even Suffolk County DA offices, then this should be the easiest decision you could make. I personally know plenty of ADAs in Suffolk who went to Hofstra--it's practically a feeder for the Suffolk County DA's Office, and I imagine Nassau isn't much different.

Jimbola wrote:Would commute to both schools (20 minutes to Hofstra; 45 minutes to St. John's)
$25K from Hofstra
$22,500 from St. Johns
Interested in City DA office

T-14 or gtfo ppl I already know you think these are terrible options.

As a practicing lawyer in NYC, I can tell you that you are way better off at SJU than at Hofstra no matter what you plan on doing. Moreover, you're way better off coming from SJU and trying to work your way into a DA's office. I would talk to SJU and see if they will match Hofstra's money. I bet they might. IF not, you're talking about a difference of $7,500 at the end... Not enough money to make a difference. Moreover, the difference in commute is negligible. Go with SJU.

Disclaimer: I don't think either is a "good" option.

.

rad lulz wrote:

dingbat wrote:and is willing to take a chance, then who are we to say, no, you can't do it.

OP wasn't asking if he should go to law school, but rather, which of the two is a better option. Telling OP not to go to either isn't constructive at all.

He can do whatever the hell he wants, it's just a bad goddamn idea

On a related note? I've decided to let romo OR reasonableman hit me in the face with a 2x4 with some rusty nails in it. Which one should I choose? I have made up my mind that this is a bad idea, telling me not to do it is unconstructive.

Pick me! Pick me!

rad lulz wrote:

dingbat wrote:and is willing to take a chance, then who are we to say, no, you can't do it.

OP wasn't asking if he should go to law school, but rather, which of the two is a better option. Telling OP not to go to either isn't constructive at all.

He can do whatever the hell he wants, it's just a bad goddamn idea

On a related note? I've decided to let romo OR reasonableman hit me in the face with a 2x4 with some rusty nails in it. Which one should I choose? I have made up my mind that this is a bad idea, telling me not to do it is unconstructive.

The question is, why would anyone tell you not to do it?

rad lulz wrote: I've decided to let romo OR reasonableman hit me in the face with a 2x4 with some rusty nails in it. Which one should I choose? I have made up my mind that this is a bad idea, telling me not to do it is unconstructive.

Still not as bad of an idea than going to hofstra or sj

Guchster wrote:

rad lulz wrote: I've decided to let romo OR reasonableman hit me in the face with a 2x4 with some rusty nails in it. Which one should I choose? I have made up my mind that this is a bad idea, telling me not to do it is unconstructive.

Still not as bad of an idea than going to hofstra or sj

Yeah, I mean, I'd hit him with it for free.

I've already stated my opinion in this thread, but if you're seriously considering St. John's you should take a look at their employment info. The information on their website is really detailed, and they also released the ABA questionnaire and the data they submitted to NALP.

--LinkRemoved--

romothesavior wrote: The reason people dissuade applicants from these schools isn't because of some notion of "T14 elitism." It's because people who go to schools like these have no better than a coin flip shot at ever getting a legal job. I hope you will try to internalize this reality, OP. Good luck.

Citing data for "schools like these" that exclude the schools in question, when numbers for those places are readily available is borderline mendacious.

So, let's evaluate your claim that the original poster has "no better than a coin flip at ever getting a legal job" by looking at the numbers for say, St. John's. I'll even do you one better. I'll brazenly double, or even triple-count all sorts of employment deficiencies, therefore representing the single most intellectually dishonest, and uncharitable numbers one can possibly concoct for St. John's Law graduates, significantly reducing their actual employment numbers.

So, 256 out of 292 members of the class of 2010 reported being employed, or not seeking employment. The NALP data list one person as not seeking employment. Although this person may not have been seeking employment for any number of reasons other than the job market, we'll lop them off. 255/292. 87%.

Now, let's disregard all work not requiring (including work that prefers- where a full 11% of the class is employed full-time with, and 7% part-time) a JD. That brings our number of graduates reporting jobs requiring a JD degree down to 202/292. 69%.

Now, let's knock off those with work requiring a JD who were working part-time, because we all know that those working part time "have no better than a coin flip" of ever working full time. 5 people. 197/292. 67%.

Okay - St. John's cheated! They employ graduates themselves! 14 of them! This isn't really employment (even for the one of them working long-term)! And these people will obviously never ever find work outside of St. John's protective cocoon. And let's also make the apocryphal assumption that every single one of these graduates were working full-time in positions requiring JDs, so we know we're not double-counting them. 179/292. 61%.

Okay. Those working on a short-term basis, or potentially short-term basis (37) don't count either! Again let's assume that all of these people were working full-time at a position requiring a JD, and were not employed by St. John's. Let's even disregard the point that this is one of the few instances where the data do actually show this to be demonstrably wrong, as the ABA placement numbers list 13 of those employed by St. John's (4.4% of the class) to be working part-time. 142/292. 49%. (Honest evaluation -156/292. 53.4%.)

So, okay. If we count every single person who reported back who was working part-time at a position requiring a JD, at short-term jobs (of which many if not most likely didn't require a JD degree, but we'll assume they all did, and we're not double-counting them), or was employed by St. John's, we have a total of 56 people - 19% of the class. (If we're truthful, and subtract the 13 short-term people known to have been employed by St. John's, we have 43 graduates - 15% of the class.) In order to reach the 49% - the "coin flip shot" at not "ever getting a legal job," we must count all these people (many of them likely multiple times) in your tally.

Again, this all of course disregards the 18% of the class working at positions (overwhelmingly full-time) preferring a JD. And (dubiously) assumes that everybody not in the tally will never transition to it, despite the fact that 20% of people reporting job offers from St. John's got them after bar passage, which a good number of people may not have had 9 months after graduation. Let’s also remember the 2010 numbers came directly following potentially the worst year for markets in the last 70 years. While the situation isn’t great now, it likely has nowhere to go but up.

Furthermore, your line of reasoning completely disregards one of the most compelling motivations many likely have for seeking a JD - they want to be a lawyer, and having a career they enjoy goes beyond cold number crunching. Yes, happiness is more than just dollars and cents. Even if this poster makes $50k a year for their whole career - let's just disregard the fact that salaries rise with seniority - and must wait 20 years before their degree is profitable (which, considering they have about a half-scholarship, and would presumably not pay rent may be a lot shorter than the actual time it takes), who is anybody to tell them that's an "objectively bad" - an oxymoronic term by the way - idea? While I probably wouldn't make that decision, I have my own circumstances, and what makes sense for one person doesn't make sense for others. Do you know how much money this person makes now, and could be on track to make? Do you know their prospects if they don’t go to law school? Do you know if they’re even employed? Comparing this decision to a smack in the face with a rusty, nail-studded 2x4 is nasty, immature, presumptuous, and un-judicious.

RW65 wrote:I've already stated my opinion in this thread, but if you're seriously considering St. John's you should take a look at their employment info. The information on their website is really detailed, and they also released the ABA questionnaire and the data they submitted to NALP.

--LinkRemoved--

Wow this really is a detailed list. Thank you.

Thanks for the topic Jim and thanks to Imrt and others for genuinely helpful answers.

This is my first post on the forum, and will give the rest of you some reasons one might want to choose between those schools. Actually, my choices in this are between Rutgers Newark and St Johns, but I am sure with the ranking of Rutgers I should still go take a 2x4 with rusty nails to the face..... (extremely helpful advice BTW)

While I will not guess on the OPs reasoning I can tell you mine. First of all I jumped into this whole law school thing a bit later in life. My original plan was to go after my undergraduate education but decided I would rather fly jets for the Air Force for a while first. So fast forward to now. I am a laid off airline pilot and laid off government contractor. I am pretty broke but my exwife and kids live well. The post 911 GI Bill was recently changed so that I can attend three years of school paid at 100% but there are some caveats. They will pay up to 100% of in state tuition at a state school. But SOME schools have programs that will make up the difference and St Johns is one of those schools. Oh, and BTW the military will also pay me a housing allowance while I am in school. If I go to Iowa that allowance is 1200/month. It is considerably more in NYC. So basically I can attend St Johns or Rutgers without financial worry. (BTW, Fordam MAY be an option but I won't know until I get my LSAT score next week.)

Oh, and then there is my wife that is from Bayside Queens and works in Newark. Iowa is probably the highest ranked school that I can get into AND afford. But if I go to Iowa that is somewhat limiting to where I will work afterwards. It also means that my wife will NOT go with me while I am in school, so you can probably tack the cost of a divorce on there and those are expensive if you don't know.

I may end up at George Mason, or Wisconsin or Iowa or Ohio State, or I may not. Taking a wild guess at my LSAT score combined with the softs I will probably get into at least one or two of them. But for me it may be worth keeping a happy home and attending a law school in or around NYC. 160k/year job isn't really all that great if half of it is going to your ex wife.

Now, will I find a job that requires a JD? Maybe, maybe not but spending three years improving my education is not a bad thing regardless of the school........

JC

JCFindley wrote:Thanks for the topic Jim and thanks to Imrt and others for genuinely helpful answers.

This is my first post on the forum, and will give the rest of you some reasons one might want to choose between those schools. Actually, my choices in this are between Rutgers Newark and St Johns, but I am sure with the ranking of Rutgers I should still go take a 2x4 with rusty nails to the face..... (extremely helpful advice BTW)

While I will not guess on the OPs reasoning I can tell you mine. First of all I jumped into this whole law school thing a bit later in life. My original plan was to go after my undergraduate education but decided I would rather fly jets for the Air Force for a while first. So fast forward to now. I am a laid off airline pilot and laid off government contractor. I am pretty broke but my exwife and kids live well. The post 911 GI Bill was recently changed so that I can attend three years of school paid at 100% but there are some caveats. They will pay up to 100% of in state tuition at a state school. But SOME schools have programs that will make up the difference and St Johns is one of those schools. Oh, and BTW the military will also pay me a housing allowance while I am in school. If I go to Iowa that allowance is 1200/month. It is considerably more in NYC. So basically I can attend St Johns or Rutgers without financial worry. (BTW, Fordam MAY be an option but I won't know until I get my LSAT score next week.)

Oh, and then there is my wife that is from Bayside Queens and works in Newark. Iowa is probably the highest ranked school that I can get into AND afford. But if I go to Iowa that is somewhat limiting to where I will work afterwards. It also means that my wife will NOT go with me while I am in school, so you can probably tack the cost of a divorce on there and those are expensive if you don't know.

I may end up at George Mason, or Wisconsin or Iowa or Ohio State, or I may not. Taking a wild guess at my LSAT score combined with the softs I will probably get into at least one or two of them. But for me it may be worth keeping a happy home and attending a law school in or around NYC. 160k/year job isn't really all that great if half of it is going to your ex wife.

Now, will I find a job that requires a JD? Maybe, maybe not but spending three years improving my education is not a bad thing regardless of the school........

JC

If you are sure that your experience in law school will be three years fully paid including living expenses, and you know your most likely outcome is a 40-50K job at a small firm in NYC/Long Island I see no reason why you shouldn't spin the wheel for that <5% chance at a great job. Many people would love to be able to ride out three years of their life debt free. But your situation is not a very common one.