Arizona vs U San Diego vs Loyola vs Penn State vs Seattle U Forum

[chungachguk]

Hey guys,

I know most of the people here are strong believers that it's either T14 or nothing, and it's difficult to argue with, however unfortunately as my UGPA leaves a lot to be desired (3.45), and I no longer have any way to improve on it, since I know I want to go to Law School, I have to deal with what I got. I am currently accepted to all of the aforementioned schools, and am on the WL for UC Davis, W&M, Washington and Lee, and UW, and am still waiting to hear from Hastings (although not too many hopes left this late into the process). Obviously if I get a late offer from any of the schools on the WL, I will gladly accept it, however the time for initial deposits is almost here so I have to decide from what I have.

Arizona, although in the lower half, is in the Top Tier, which although is not as important as I wish it was, still looks better, especially if I have an opportunity to transfer after the first year (not pinning my hopes on it, but will do what I can). Also Arizona while not really recognized nationally (but then again what school outside of the T14 is, really) is still a reputable school within the region, and with less schools to compete with vs let's say Californian schools, should be able to hold it's own. 18k/year/renewable if in top half.

San Diego and Loyola: Undoubtedly my top choices as far as geographic location. Southern California is where I want to eventually end up (if all things work out), and thus considering the GPA vs LSAT (163) I have, USD and Loyola seemed like the best fit. Again, I am aware that the Californian law market is in shatters, but once again besides NY for T14, what isn't. While Corporate Law is what I ideally see myself getting into, smaller regional firms will do just fine for me as well. Aspirations aside, I am not THAT keen on large firm/top 3% wages (although will do what I can), so I feel like I would still be able to find a smaller firm in Southern California having graduated from either. But which one is best? Haven't received the financial aid package from Loyola yet, as I have just received the acceptance, but San Diego is giving me $19k/year as long as I stay in the top 90%, which I see myself doing.

Seattle U and Penn State: So far they are the outliers. Applied to Seattle U as a security school, since I have lived in Seattle for the past 10 years. Definitely do not see myself staying here for the rest of my life, as the weather here is just not for me, but again I am more of a believer of living where the good job is versus working where you want to leave (9 times out of the 10 at least). Both Seattle U and Penn State are giving me about the same as the other schools. 18k/year as long as I am in the top 30% for Penn State and top half for Seattle U.

So here you have it, any advice is appreciated. I am not easily butt-hurt so feel free to be as honest as you want, however try and be constructive as well.

Thank you all!

[romothesavior]

Its not just T14 or bust, it's more nuanced than that. Strong local schools (ideally where you have ties) at reasonable prices can be okay options too. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like you've listed any options like this.

Your GPA is not awful. It will hurt you for the California schools, but a retake seems in order.

[specialsnowflake]

ASU or bust

[chungachguk]

Its not just T14 or bust, it's more nuanced than that. Strong local schools (ideally where you have ties) at reasonable prices can be okay options too. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like you've listed any options like this.

Your GPA is not awful. It will hurt you for the California schools, but a retake seems in order.

Yeah, I probably should've been clearer. You're right, there are indeed more nuances to the "T14 or bust".

Yeah unfortunately there are only 2 law schools in Washington.

Unfortunately, 163 was already a retake score, after I got a 159 the first time. It feels like taking it the third time might be pushing it a little bit and might give Law Schools the wrong idea. (Wish I took the LSAT more seriously the first time, but no time for regrets now. Will just have to make up for it all when in Law School.)

[chungachguk]

ASU or bust

While ASU is not an option, I take it you are optimistic about Arizona law schools in general?

[RedBirds2011]

The thing that always worried me about always retaking is the possibility of fucking up and getting a LOWER score.

[spleenworship]

Where are your geographic ties?

[Danteshek]

I'm happy to discuss Loyola offline if you want. I'm a 3L.

[chungachguk]

Where are your geographic ties?

My geographic ties are arguably to Seattle. Arguably because they are limited to my mother, father and brother living here, as well as me being here since I was 13.

While I partially understand the importance of geographic ties, and have seen them mentioned numerous times through reading discussions/suggestions I am still not exactly certain of why they are as crucial as people make them out to be? So I would appreciate the input. (although it would probably be easier and more productive to just search the forums for previous threads on the subject).

But if I grew up in Seattle (grew up from 13 to 25) and my family lives here, does that really mean that Washington is the only viable option for me as far as Law School, and consequently as far as the future career go?

[chungachguk]

I'm happy to discuss Loyola offline if you want. I'm a 3L.

Thanks a lot, will definitely contact you via PM.

[romothesavior]

While I partially understand the importance of geographic ties, and have seen them mentioned numerous times through reading discussions/suggestions I am still not exactly certain of why they are as crucial as people make them out to be? So I would appreciate the input. (although it would probably be easier and more productive to just search the forums for previous threads on the subject).

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... nal+school

This thread puts it a little more succinctly. Start reading from this post: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6#p5341086

A short answer to your question: Training/hiring someone to work at a law firm is very, very expensive. This isn't some minimum wage job at Starbucks. The recruitment process, the summer program, your salary, etc. is easily hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money you make the firm is very small. In megafirms in the huge primary markets, they have built in attrition and are not going to care as much about you leaving, but at a firm that hires 5-10 SAs in a secondary market, they are gonna be stung if you leave after a year or two. They want to see some commitment, because it is their hope you'll stick around a bit. They don't want you to just use them for a year or two to add a resume line and bolt to a new place.

Ties are not a trump card. Other factors are still very important, and probably are more important. The TLS focus on them is because it is one of the few things you can do as a 0L in choosing a school to maximize your chances. You have no idea how you are going to do in law school; you can't just assume top 10%. What if you are median? You'd be better off at median in your hometown than in some city 1,000 miles away.

Hope that is helpful.

[taxguy]

With a 3.45 and a 163, why aren't you considering Univeristy of Florida which is a very good law school. Also, you should consider going to the best law school in the state that you want to practice in as an alternative to those mention. Thus, if you want to stay in Arizona, University of Arizona might be a good choice. If your ties are to Seattle, definately take UW if you get in.

[chungachguk]

While I partially understand the importance of geographic ties, and have seen them mentioned numerous times through reading discussions/suggestions I am still not exactly certain of why they are as crucial as people make them out to be? So I would appreciate the input. (although it would probably be easier and more productive to just search the forums for previous threads on the subject).

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... nal+school

This thread puts it a little more succinctly. Start reading from this post: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6#p5341086

A short answer to your question: Training/hiring someone to work at a law firm is very, very expensive. This isn't some minimum wage job at Starbucks. The recruitment process, the summer program, your salary, etc. is easily hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money you make the firm is very small. In megafirms in the huge primary markets, they have built in attrition and are not going to care as much about you leaving, but at a firm that hires 5-10 SAs in a secondary market, they are gonna be stung if you leave after a year or two. They want to see some commitment, because it is their hope you'll stick around a bit. They don't want you to just use them for a year or two to add a resume line and bolt to a new place.

Ties are not a trump card. Other factors are still very important, and probably are more important. The TLS focus on them is because it is one of the few things you can do as a 0L in choosing a school to maximize your chances. You have no idea how you are going to do in law school; you can't just assume top 10%. What if you are median? You'd be better off at median in your hometown than in some city 1,000 miles away.

Hope that is helpful.

That was probably the best explanation I've found so far. Straight and to the point. Thanks! But how does that vary if you take school rankings into consideration? For example if let's say I don't get into UW (only T1 option for my "hometown"), that only leaves Seattle U (which is a T2 and is ranked somewhere in the mid-80s), versus let's say a school like U of AZ which is in the T1, although in a state without any ties as of yet. Where would you personally draw the line at which the ranking of the school trumps the local ties? (if that makes any sense)

[spleenworship]

In order, I recommend for you:

UWash (if you get in)
Seattle (if you get a scholarship)
Arizona

[chungachguk]

With a 3.45 and a 163, why aren't you considering Univeristy of Florida which is a very good law school. Also, you should consider going to the best law school in the state that you want to practice in as an alternative to those mention. Thus, if you want to stay in Arizona, University of Arizona might be a good choice. If your ties are to Seattle, definately take UW if you get in.

Hey, yeah, I am not exactly sure why I completely ignored U of Florida. It seems like a very viable option.

And yeah, if I get an offer I will most likely go to UW (although most of the schools I was WL at would be great). W&M and Washington and Lee might be hard to explain as far as the ties go, although VA is a great state, but UC Davis is a great option for me cause my SO is at UC Davis Medical School and will most likely eventually get a job and stay there (in CA, not necessarily Sacramento).

[chungachguk]

In order, I recommend for you:

UWash (if you get in)
Seattle (if you get a scholarship)
Arizona

Thank you.

Any particular reason why Seattle U before Arizona, USD and/or Loyola? Besides the local ties? (I could try and email them for more money, but it would be kind of tough, as all schools gave me about the same 16k-18.5k/year/renewable so I don't really have any negotiating leverage.

[romothesavior]

With a 3.45 and a 163, why aren't you considering Univeristy of Florida which is a very good law school. Also, you should consider going to the best law school in the state that you want to practice in as an alternative to those mention. Thus, if you want to stay in Arizona, University of Arizona might be a good choice. If your ties are to Seattle, definately take UW if you get in.

Yeah good call. OP should go to a regional school in a small, insular, oversaturated market 3,000 miles away. Brilliant idea.

[spleenworship]

UC Davis is a great option for me cause my SO is at UC Davis Medical School and will most likely eventually get a job and stay there (in CA, not necessarily Sacramento).

This might be a good choice for you.... but consider that your SO will have to do a residency, and can apply to any teaching hospitals in your area. I know UW medical school has pretty much every residency available... so while it might limit her specialty options (because of the way the match works), it wouldn't necessarily limit her geographically.

[chungachguk]

UC Davis is a great option for me cause my SO is at UC Davis Medical School and will most likely eventually get a job and stay there (in CA, not necessarily Sacramento).

This might be a good choice for you.... but consider that your SO will have to do a residency, and can apply to any teaching hospitals in your area. I know UW medical school has pretty much every residency available... so while it might limit her specialty options (because of the way the match works), it wouldn't necessarily limit her geographically.

Well yeah, I am not even sure where (or, how, exactly the residency systems work) so I don't know where she will end up doing her residency. Honestly all things kept equal, I would love for her to do it in California somewhere, especially if I can go to a good Law School there too. California just has a lot of appeal to me.

As far as Seattle, I feel like it's either UW or nothing for me. (not in any way disrespecting Seattle U Law, as I know a lot of great, highly intelligent people who go there).

[spleenworship]

Just so you know for the future:

The match consists of the MD student applying and interviewing for residency positions. They then rank those positions. The positions then rank the applicants they interviewed. They then plug it into a computer and you are "matched" and HAVE (required by contract) to go to that position. All done by computer.

There are three ways to play this:

1) you interview with as many positions that have the specialty you want that you can, so you hopefully get that specialty...

2) you interview with multiple specialties in a single geographic area in order to live there (but not necessarily get the specialty you like)

3) some combination of the above (like 3 specialties in 3 locations you are interested in, or whatever)

[chungachguk]

Hey guys,

Thank you all for your input and advice. Although I haven't really decided on the specific one that I will go to, all of this was really helpful.

At this point I am thinking I will submit a deposit into the top school on this list (does anyone know how frowned upon, or unethical is submitting first seat deposits to two school, while you are still undecided? Outside of it being a stupid financial decision since deposits are non-refundable, but are there any rules/laws against that?)

It has also been brought to my attention that re-taking the LSAT once more might not be a terrible idea, so here's what I am thinking: I will submit a deposit to my top choice out of the schools that I've gotten into... Keep my fingers crossed for one of the waitlists (again not pinning too many hopes on it, but it could happen)... And also study for the June LSAT. If my practice tests will continuously improve, and I can get anywhere near high 160s, low- to mid- 170s (it might be a stretch but I feel like with enough dedication and hard-work it is not impossible), I will take the June LSAT. If I score 168 or 169+ on the June LSAT I will scrap this cycle and re-apply again for the next one. Hopefully to one of the T14s (Georgetown, Cornell, Michigan, Berkley maybe) as well as USC, UCLA, and UW to see if I can if nothing else improve my chances at them. And if I don't improve on my score, or improve it by a couple of points, I will happily go to the school I am registered for and work my butt off to be as successful as I can be there.

Any thought? Comments? It seems like a Win-Win situation as there's really no downside, but it will be the 4th time I am taking the LSAT (159, 159 (was a moron who decided that I can improve on my score just by practicing more Logic Games, and 163), and I am a little concerned about how desparate the 4th test might look, but I still think it might be worth a shot.

[Danteshek]

It seems like a Win-Win situation as there's really no downside.

The downside is that you graduate with $200,000 in debt and no job

[rad lulz]

While I partially understand the importance of geographic ties, and have seen them mentioned numerous times through reading discussions/suggestions I am still not exactly certain of why they are as crucial as people make them out to be? So I would appreciate the input. (although it would probably be easier and more productive to just search the forums for previous threads on the subject).

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... nal+school

This thread puts it a little more succinctly. Start reading from this post: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6#p5341086

A short answer to your question: Training/hiring someone to work at a law firm is very, very expensive. This isn't some minimum wage job at Starbucks. The recruitment process, the summer program, your salary, etc. is easily hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money you make the firm is very small. In megafirms in the huge primary markets, they have built in attrition and are not going to care as much about you leaving, but at a firm that hires 5-10 SAs in a secondary market, they are gonna be stung if you leave after a year or two. They want to see some commitment, because it is their hope you'll stick around a bit. They don't want you to just use them for a year or two to add a resume line and bolt to a new place.

Ties are not a trump card. Other factors are still very important, and probably are more important. The TLS focus on them is because it is one of the few things you can do as a 0L in choosing a school to maximize your chances. You have no idea how you are going to do in law school; you can't just assume top 10%. What if you are median? You'd be better off at median in your hometown than in some city 1,000 miles away.

Hope that is helpful.

This plus I'd add that another reason especially in secondary markets is they want you to stay is so you can build a network and becoming a functioning member of the community. As you grow in the firm, this should lead to clients and business. This advantage is lost if you plan to split after a couple years. This isn't NYC where the main client is, say, Chase Manhattan, and you probably won't drum up business with them by "networking" since one firm (in this case Milbank) handles the lion's share of their stuff and has been doing it for a while.

[t14fanboy]

Hey guys,

Thank you all for your input and advice. Although I haven't really decided on the specific one that I will go to, all of this was really helpful.

At this point I am thinking I will submit a deposit into the top school on this list (does anyone know how frowned upon, or unethical is submitting first seat deposits to two school, while you are still undecided? Outside of it being a stupid financial decision since deposits are non-refundable, but are there any rules/laws against that?)

It has also been brought to my attention that re-taking the LSAT once more might not be a terrible idea, so here's what I am thinking: I will submit a deposit to my top choice out of the schools that I've gotten into... Keep my fingers crossed for one of the waitlists (again not pinning too many hopes on it, but it could happen)... And also study for the June LSAT. If my practice tests will continuously improve, and I can get anywhere near high 160s, low- to mid- 170s (it might be a stretch but I feel like with enough dedication and hard-work it is not impossible), I will take the June LSAT. If I score 168 or 169+ on the June LSAT I will scrap this cycle and re-apply again for the next one. Hopefully to one of the T14s (Georgetown, Cornell, Michigan, Berkley maybe) as well as USC, UCLA, and UW to see if I can if nothing else improve my chances at them. And if I don't improve on my score, or improve it by a couple of points, I will happily go to the school I am registered for and work my butt off to be as successful as I can be there.

Any thought? Comments? It seems like a Win-Win situation as there's really no downside, but it will be the 4th time I am taking the LSAT (159, 159 (was a moron who decided that I can improve on my score just by practicing more Logic Games, and 163), and I am a little concerned about how desparate the 4th test might look, but I still think it might be worth a shot.

You know you can only take the test a maximum of three times in a two-year interval right? And also a 168 or 169 will probably not cut it for t14 schools. 170 or above.