Seattle University vs. Michigan State University Forum

[timbs4339]

This is an honest question, what do you think lawyers do all day?

You are locking yourself into a 30-35 year career based on one UG Con Law class (I got an A in mine too, it was taught by a burned out state attorney general who told us not to go to law school) and what you think the curriculum in law school is like. Real law practice is much different. Read the last two pages of this thread http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=50

[Jaeger]

What I've learned here:

1. If OP can't be a lawyer, he'd rather sit at home and do nothing. (Presumably his parents' home since he won't be able to afford one without a job.)

2. Everyone who advises against going to law school is a) bitter about their cycle and/or unemployed, or b) just scared of competition from the OP. He is quite intimidating, after all.

1. You are assuming that his parents are still married.

2. You are assuming that the person in question doesn't get an inheritance/money of some sort.

3. I do read some bitter people here that are merely trolling instead of offering constructive criticism. Suffice it to say, if you can spend your time on this site during the day, you're not making mucho bucks yourself (global use of the term - not aimed particularly at you). Most credible agencies I worked for didn't allow for ANY internet usage that did not directly affect the work sphere. This applies here.

4. If your criticism is going to be, don't go to X school because of X reason, I'd like to sell you some ocean-front property in Nebraska. Because both statements are ridiculous.

5. There are legitimate reasons to not go to X school. None were provided. And if you'd like to assume that the person in question didn't think of the weather and other criterion in his calculation, I'm going to question your (once again global use of the word) ability to offer any credible advice to any future client within your wing.

TL;DR

[romothesavior]

What I've learned here:

1. If OP can't be a lawyer, he'd rather sit at home and do nothing. (Presumably his parents' home since he won't be able to afford one without a job.)

2. Everyone who advises against going to law school is a) bitter about their cycle and/or unemployed, or b) just scared of competition from the OP. He is quite intimidating, after all.

1. You are assuming that his parents are still married.

2. You are assuming that the person in question doesn't get an inheritance/money of some sort.

3. I do read some bitter people here that are merely trolling instead of offering constructive criticism. Suffice it to say, if you can spend your time on this site during the day, you're not making mucho bucks yourself (global use of the term - not aimed particularly at you). Most credible agencies I worked for didn't allow for ANY internet usage that did not directly affect the work sphere. This applies here. (Eds. Note: most of the current law students who post in this forum regularly have big firm jobs. HTH)

4. If your criticism is going to be, don't go to X school because of X reason, I'd like to sell you some ocean-front property in Nebraska. Because both statements are ridiculous.

5. There are legitimate reasons to not go to X school. None were provided. And if you'd like to assume that the person in question didn't think of the weather and other criterion in his calculation, I'm going to question your (once again global use of the word) ability to offer any credible advice to any future client within your wing.

I have highlighted all of the false statements in red. I have highlighted all the irrelevant statements in blue. I have highlighted all the statements that literally made no sense in green.

Enjoy your day.

[BearsGrl]

What I've learned here:

1. If OP can't be a lawyer, he'd rather sit at home and do nothing. (Presumably his parents' home since he won't be able to afford one without a job.)

2. Everyone who advises against going to law school is a) bitter about their cycle and/or unemployed, or b) just scared of competition from the OP. He is quite intimidating, after all.

1. You are assuming that his parents are still married.

2. You are assuming that the person in question doesn't get an inheritance/money of some sort.

3. I do read some bitter people here that are merely trolling instead of offering constructive criticism. Suffice it to say, if you can spend your time on this site during the day, you're not making mucho bucks yourself (global use of the term - not aimed particularly at you). Most credible agencies I worked for didn't allow for ANY internet usage that did not directly affect the work sphere. This applies here. (Eds. Note: most of the current law students who post in this forum regularly have big firm jobs. HTH)

4. If your criticism is going to be, don't go to X school because of X reason, I'd like to sell you some ocean-front property in Nebraska. Because both statements are ridiculous.

5. There are legitimate reasons to not go to X school. None were provided. And if you'd like to assume that the person in question didn't think of the weather and other criterion in his calculation, I'm going to question your (once again global use of the word) ability to offer any credible advice to any future client within your wing.

I have highlighted all of the false statements in red. I have highlighted all the irrelevant statements in blue. I have highlighted all the statements that literally made no sense in green.

Enjoy your day.

Another troll-worthy comment. Awesome.

I will refer back to my internet at work statement.

And no, you enjoy your day.

[Jaeger]

Dude, why would you assume we have jobs?

[BearsGrl]

Dude, why would you assume we have jobs?

I didn't. I take the approach mentioned (internet at work, plus the statement below) into consideration.

Talking about someone and employment when you have no job yourself is kinda hilarious in and of itself.

[rad lulz]

.

[Jaeger]

Dude, why would you assume we have jobs?

I didn't. I take the approach mentioned (internet at work, plus the statement below) into consideration.

Talking about someone and employment when you have no job yourself is kinda hilarious in and of itself.

I'm an LLC, dude. Now shut up and go back to the Cooley depths from whence you came.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Dude, why would you assume we have jobs?

I didn't. I take the approach mentioned (internet at work, plus the statement below) into consideration.

Talking about someone and employment when you have no job yourself is kinda hilarious in and of itself.

Do you know how legal hiring works? A good chunk of TLS posters are 2L's who have a 2L summer job lined up at a big firm. Most of these firms have 90%+ offer rates for their summers.

I have a 2L summer job lined up. Does that make me qualified to offer advice, or do I need to wait until I get an offer at the end of summer? (Or should I wait until I actually start working at a firm?) People are telling OP that his job prospects will be bad coming from either one of these schools. You don't need a legal job to know that.

[llachans]

Did you get a scholarship from either school? I applied to both of those schools and attended MSU's ASD. I wasn't interested in all at MSU (I only applied b/c of the money they threw at me), but I was highly impressed. They gave a very realistic picture of the job market. If you are interested in pursuing clinical programs, I would really consider MSU because their clinics are very well constructed. I only used SU for leverage reasons. Their employment prospects are way worse than MSU and the region is just a lot harder to break into.

If you're okay with settling down in Michigan, I don't think MSU is necessarily a bad decision, provided they threw a lot of scholarship money and MSU can get you where you want to be after graduation. Ex: I want to work in criminal law. I realize that I need to minimize debt. MSU can help me attain these goals.

Make sure you tackle where you want to live and what you want to do, and maybe MSU could be the right decision. I really don't see SU as a good pick though. UW dominates the market.

[thexfactor]

My LSAT has been my weak point and has ruined my chances in a top 50 school. I blew my chance with the LSAT. I took it two times before the December 2011 test and I had gotten 148 and 150. So a 154 is a pretty decent rise for me. I took Blueprint courses for it and got my practice scores into the high 150s and even a 161 5 days before the test day but I noticed every test day I messed up a whole game which costs me my points. I usually get 20 right on the games but every time the real test arrives I end with about 16 right on games. I think taking it a fourth time and risking a break down during the test would make things worse. So I am keeping my 3.7 and 154, hoping for the best.

Maybe you should try a different career. Going to either school sticker is financial suicide. If you want to gamble at least have a somewhat reasonable chance of a good outcome. There is a 90-95% chance that if you attend MSU law in three years you will look back at this post and realize that you should have listened to romo.
Do you know how insular the Seattle/Detroit legal market is?

[BearsGrl]

Dude, why would you assume we have jobs?

I didn't. I take the approach mentioned (internet at work, plus the statement below) into consideration.

Talking about someone and employment when you have no job yourself is kinda hilarious in and of itself.

Do you know how legal hiring works? A good chunk of TLS posters are 2L's who have a 2L summer job lined up at a big firm. Most of these firms have 90%+ offer rates for their summers.

I have a 2L summer job lined up. Does that make me qualified to offer advice, or do I need to wait until I get an offer at the end of summer? (Or should I wait until I actually start working at a firm?) People are telling OP that his job prospects will be bad coming from either one of these schools. You don't need a legal job to know that.

Do I work in HR for a law firm? No.
A good chunk of TLS posters don't offer actual insight. Of course the market is down. Of course going to X is going to be more difficult to get a job than going to X school. These are givens.
If you have a 2L Summer job lined up, then why are you on TLS? There's sunshine outside. You should be out enjoying it since we, as future law school hopefuls and current law students, won't see much of it. (I say that as someone that thinks that you have been a more fair poster too.)

I just think the advice being given is wrong. We can all agree to disagree.

[romothesavior]

Dude, why would you assume we have jobs?

Not a dude.

I didn't. I take the approach mentioned (internet at work, plus the statement below) into consideration.

Talking about someone and employment when you have no job yourself is kinda hilarious in and of itself.

Dude you're a moran. Just because I don't have a jerb doesn't mean I don't know anything about legal hiring. I'm a law student. Legal hiring is like half of what I do.

Current 2Ls, 3Ls, and recent graduates know more about legal hiring than just about anyone else. We don't know much about actually practicing law, but we easily know more about current law school hiring trends than MOST Law Firm partners, save for maybe the hiring partners themselves, and I don't feel brazen at all in making this claim. Things are different now than they were 5, 10, 30 years ago, and those who are currently going through it are best able to speak to it.

[BearsGrl]

Dude, why would you assume we have jobs?

Not a dude.

I didn't. I take the approach mentioned (internet at work, plus the statement below) into consideration.

Talking about someone and employment when you have no job yourself is kinda hilarious in and of itself.

Dude you're a moran. Just because I don't have a jerb doesn't mean I don't know anything about legal hiring. I'm a law student. Legal hiring is like half of what I do.

Current 2Ls, 3Ls, and recent graduates know more about legal hiring than just about anyone else. We don't know much about actually practicing law, but we easily know more about current law school hiring trends than most law firm partners, save for maybe the hiring partners themselves, and I don't feel brazen at all in making this claim. Things are different now than they were 5, 10, 30 years ago, and those who are currently going through it are best able to speak to it.

I don't disagree with your "good intent", but I disagree with the notion that people haven't already considered the options that you've put forth. Repetition does not necessarily change outcome.

[thexfactor]

To OP and BEARSGRL:
PLEASE READ-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/busin ... wanted=all

[BearsGrl]

To OP and BEARSGRL:
PLEASE READ-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/busin ... wanted=all

Read from a newspaper who's readership is tanking? No thanks.

I wait for the mockery on this too.

Edit: As I've said, I don't disagree with the intent of that article. This knowledge has been known for years though. This is not new news.

[lobolawyer]

Current 2Ls, 3Ls, and recent graduates know more about legal hiring than just about anyone else. We don't know much about actually practicing law, but we easily know more about current law school hiring trends than MOST Law Firm partners, save for maybe the hiring partners themselves, and I don't feel brazen at all in making this claim. Things are different now than they were 5, 10, 30 years ago, and those who are currently going through it are best able to speak to it.[/quote]

I don't disagree with your "good intent", but I disagree with the notion that people haven't already considered the options that you've put forth. Repetition does not necessarily change outcome.[/quote]

From "I would be grateful if I could get some insight into determining job opportunities for graduates from both schools. Also, if anyone can let me know the trend of their rankings over the past few years it would help a great deal" It doesn't sound like OP considered it, and at any rate he was asking for advice on job opportunities, which is being given here by those who know hiring best.

[BearsGrl]

Current 2Ls, 3Ls, and recent graduates know more about legal hiring than just about anyone else. We don't know much about actually practicing law, but we easily know more about current law school hiring trends than most law firm partners, save for maybe the hiring partners themselves, and I don't feel brazen at all in making this claim. Things are different now than they were 5, 10, 30 years ago, and those who are currently going through it are best able to speak to it.

I don't disagree with your "good intent", but I disagree with the notion that people haven't already considered the options that you've put forth. Repetition does not necessarily change outcome.[/quote]

From "I would be grateful if I could get some insight into determining job opportunities for graduates from both schools. Also, if anyone can let me know the trend of their rankings over the past few years it would help a great deal" It doesn't sound like OP considered it, and at any rate he was asking for advice on job opportunities, which is being given here by those who know hiring best.[/quote]

The message was generic and screamed for posters to pounce. And pounce they did.

[romothesavior]

First of all, there are many people who come to TLS and have no idea that things are the way they are. There are countless stories of people retaking or deciding not to go altogether because of information they get here. So it is absolutely worthwhile, because while it may be repetitive for many of us, it is important new info for others.

Second, some say they get it, but it is apparent that they don't. It is one thing to say, oh yeah the market is bad, but it is another to really internalize it. There is one legal job for every two graduates. Most of these jobs pay well under six figures, many in the 30-50 range. If people truly internalized and rationally considered these outcomes, they would avoid going to regional schools with big price tags in regions where they have no ties.

Finally, you don't know anything about legal hiring. You landed some 0L legal job and you think you're an expert? Get real. You're a 0L and almost every 2L and 3L disagrees with you. That should tell you something right there.

[rad lulz]

.

[BearsGrl]

First of all, there are many people who come to TLS and have no idea that things are the way they are. There are countless stories of people retaking or deciding not to go altogether because of information they get here. So it is absolutely worthwhile, because while it may be repetitive for many of us, it is important new info for others.

Second, some say they get it, but it is apparent that they don't. It is one thing to say, oh yeah the market is bad, but it is another to really internalize it. There is one legal job for every two graduates. Most of these jobs pay well under six figures, many in the 30-50 range. If people truly internalized and rationally considered these outcomes, they would avoid going to regional schools with big price tags in regions where they have no ties.

Finally, you don't know anything about legal hiring. You landed some 0L legal job and you think you're an expert? Get real. You're a 0L and almost every 2L and 3L disagrees with you. That should tell you something right there.

You assumed that I was talking about some 0L job. Nowhere did I mention the concept of 0L law job.
I never claimed to be an expert. I claimed that there would be differing opinions on the issue. If you felt that was a personal attack, so be it.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. But I don't see how repeating the same talking points that the person is going to read from 4938594358 other TLS posters is going to help that particular person with their particular question. You disagree with that. I understand. I don't disagree with your ability to disagree with it.

You are assuming that people don't take into account that they will be making $50,000 as a starting salary. This is a false assumption.

[Jaeger]

It doesn't mater if there are differing opinions. Those differing opinions are just plain wrong.

FACT: OP should not go to either of these schools without ties or substantial funding.
FACT: OP can not get into better schools without retaking.
FACT: OP refuses to retake.
Opinion: OP should not go to law school.

So, yeah, the last one is an opinion, but it's really more of a logical conclusion. Stop coddling and lying to the OP. You're doing more harm than good.

Finally, see my avatar. That you? Thought so. Now move on.

[BearsGrl]

It doesn't mater if there are differing opinions. Those differing opinions are just plain wrong.

FACT: OP should not go to either of these schools without ties or substantial funding.
FACT: OP can not get into better schools without retaking.
FACT: OP refuses to retake.
Opinion: OP should not go to law school.

So, yeah, the last one is an opinion, but it's really more of a logical conclusion. Stop coddling and lying to the OP. You're doing more harm than good.

Finally, see my avatar. That you? Thought so. Now move on.

Avatars are totally mature in order to get a point across.
Good to know your opinion on the matter. Suffice it to say, but the public could tell this was your opinion 100 messages ago. But thanks for clarifying.

[Jaeger]

[BearsGrl]

Because photos are cool.
The fact that you even took time to search that out (because I hope you don't have such photos just lying around your PC) speaks volumes.

Enjoy your evening.