Top Law Schools

I'm thinking of going to Brooklyn. But NYC is my target market; I got a 90K scholarship; I have savings to pay the rest of the tuition; and I'll be living for free with my family. And I'm STILL not sure I'm doing the right thing. Paying it all with loans and then trying to market the degree in L.A. sounds absurd.

.

Then perhaps he should go into academia as a CSO and work on changing that pecking order.[/quote]
This is the stupidest thing I've read all day.

"You shouldn't smoke cigarettes." "Well maybe you should get a job on the Hill with a lobbying firm so you can fight RJ Reynolds." Jaysus.[/quote]

A lobbying firm cannot guarantee anything about not smoking cigarettes so I think this is a poor analogy. We are not dealing with a policy issue. I get where you were going with it, but disagree with the effectiveness of the analogy. But if you think it works, cool.

BearsGrl wrote:
Loyola isn't a "shitty" law school. As someone that lives North of Chicago, I find it comical that you would even imply this.

I live in Chicago. And while "shitty" may be too strong a word, LUC with only 12k is NOT a wise investment for everyone. It's reputation isn't outstanding as you imply, and it will not lead to jobs that will pay off enormous amounts of debt. And whatever reputation it has in Chicago, it does NOT have the same reputation in LA (I would be surprised if any in SoCal not from Chicago has heard of it.)

BearsGrl wrote:
It's duly noted that your client skills are horrible. Good luck with that mentality at an interview. Wowsa.

sickbetter wrote:I am 28 years old and I just went back to school 2 years ago to finish my undergrad. I worked in real estate finance and when te market crashed I lost everything. I got a 158 on my LSAT an I honestly had not taken a practice test that showed I could do much better. Law is something I had always saw myself dojng even before I dropped out of school.

Accruing debt for an investment is not the worst thing in the world, I know the job market is a rancid place right but the advice to tell someone not to go to law school is unwarranted. It seems like if you don't go to a top 20 school then the idea of going to law school is a foolish one. Let's put aside the idea of not going to law school because that would defeat the purpose of choosing between my options.

There is nothing wrong with going into debt for an investment, but the key word is investment. USD/BLS/LUC at these prices aren't investments like buying a share of stock. They are more akin to gambling, and not the good kind where you roughly break even at the blackjack table. No, these schools at these prices are basically like buying a very expensive lottery ticket due to the fact that you have a very small chance of seeing any real return on the money you put in and most likely it will all just get pissed away.

It's also not relevant that you're 28. The difference between being 28 and 29 is small and unimportant in the face of the horrible options you have. You need to retake the LSAT. There are plenty of resources on TLS that might help you score better. The sad truth is that if you don't do better, you really should give up on law school because it is not something that is financially feasible. Just because it's something you've always wanted to do doesn't mean you should do. If my dream was to own a Lotus Elise but I never made it off welfare it would be irresponsible of me to take out loans to buy one. Just because the government is willing to hand you a blank check to take on as much debt to go to one of these schools doesn't mean that you should considering they are such absurdly horrible financial decisions.

BearsGrl wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:

BearsGrl wrote:

rad lulz wrote:Too bad it's reputation doesn't translate to jerbs.

Seeing as you say that for all schools, your concern has been noted and is moot at this point.

Assburgersgrl strikes again. I don't think he has ever said it about a school in the top 20 for the right price.

It's duly noted that your client skills are horrible. Good luck with that mentality at an interview. Wowsa.

Because the response to a perfectly logical argument about TTs is an ad hominem. OP, I'd ignore this posted and listen to the credited advice. Plead retake. Would you sit out a year in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars of scholarship funds and significantly better prospects? Of course you would.

bdole2 wrote:

BearsGrl wrote:
Loyola isn't a "shitty" law school. As someone that lives North of Chicago, I find it comical that you would even imply this.

I live in Chicago. And while "shitty" may be too strong a word, LUC with only 12k is NOT a wise investment for everyone. It's reputation isn't outstanding as you imply, and it will not lead to jobs that will pay off enormous amounts of debt. And whatever reputation it has in Chicago, it does NOT have the same reputation in LA (I would be surprised if any in SoCal not from Chicago has heard of it.)

I never said that it was outstanding. I said that it was solid. This person could lateral it to multiple firms in the area. Any person going to law school in Chicago is going to find more competition period and therein lies the general rub. I meant that overall it has a solid reputation. Chicago folks will be competing against national schools though so obviously you have to take that into consideration. If you're not from Chicago and you want to get into the Chicago market via Loyola, I would be skeptical, but it's not entirely not possible.

I know individuals currently working in Chicago and they didn't go to name-brand law schools and they're employed in some capacity. They went to schools lower than Loyola too.

BearsGrl wrote: I never said that it was outstanding. I said that it was solid. This person could lateral it to multiple firms in the area. Any person going to law school in Chicago is going to find more competition period and therein lies the general rub. I meant that overall it has a solid reputation. Chicago folks will be competing against national schools though so obviously you have to take that into consideration. If you're not from Chicago and you want to get into the Chicago market via Loyola, I would be skeptical, but it's not entirely not possible.

I know individuals currently working in Chicago and they didn't go to name-brand law schools and they're employed in some capacity. They went to schools lower than Loyola too.

I know people with jobs from LUC too. Yes Loyola can get you jobs. Its just a matter of risk. If Loyola can get <10% of their graduates legal work that will pay over 65k, then should anyone take out 150k in loans to go there? No. If someone wants to work in California should they took out 150k in loans to go to LUC? No. Like other posters have said, if you want to work in Chicago and are only taking 60k in loans, then maybe LUC isn't a bad option.

However, for the OP of this thread, LUC is a horrible option.

bdole2 wrote:

BearsGrl wrote: I never said that it was outstanding. I said that it was solid. This person could lateral it to multiple firms in the area. Any person going to law school in Chicago is going to find more competition period and therein lies the general rub. I meant that overall it has a solid reputation. Chicago folks will be competing against national schools though so obviously you have to take that into consideration. If you're not from Chicago and you want to get into the Chicago market via Loyola, I would be skeptical, but it's not entirely not possible.

I know individuals currently working in Chicago and they didn't go to name-brand law schools and they're employed in some capacity. They went to schools lower than Loyola too.

I know people with jobs from LUC too. Yes Loyola can get you jobs. Its just a matter of risk. If Loyola can get <10% of their graduates legal work that will pay over 65k, then should anyone take out 150k in loans to go there? No. If someone wants to work in California should they took out 150k in loans to go to LUC? No. Like other posters have said, if you want to work in Chicago and are only taking 60k in loans, then maybe LUC isn't a bad option.

However, for the OP of this thread, LUC is a horrible option.

I agree with your overall sentiment. I merely took issue with the idea that Loyola isn't a solid option for people, generally speaking. For this person, I wouldn't go. Unless this person was ok with lateral moves in the Midwest. Not everyone is looking into BigLaw and not everyone has financial concerns. I think TLS posters think that everyone is concerned with money. Obviously a lot of people will be, but some people won't.

If someone wants to work in CA, go to a top school or a CA school.

Get good grades and transfer from the TT (BLS) to the region you want or a better national name, possibly with a better scholarship. You still should be taking the LSAT again, although sitting out a year isn't the only option.

The reason why the responses from some are so terse is because the same questions (with slightly different variables) keep getting asked. Look at the post counts on some of these guys it gets tiring!

Any degree is gamble. Is it similar to the lottery or casino gambling? Absolutely not. The difference is very obvious in that it is not an absolute win/loss. In addition the degree still has value even if it is a regional TT, regardless of what the experts comment ad nauseam on this site.

DTDT wrote:Get good grades and transfer from the TT (BLS) to the region you want or a better national name, possibly with a better scholarship. You still should be taking the LSAT again, although sitting out a year isn't the only option.

No. 1000x no. You will need extremely good grades (top 10%) to be able to transfer to a decent option. You have a 90% chance of not being able to transfer. Everyone thinks they will be at the top of their class. Sitting out a year IS the only option. Even if you DID somehow manage to transfer, transfer students almost NEVER get scholarships.

bdole2 wrote:

DTDT wrote:Get good grades and transfer from the TT (BLS) to the region you want or a better national name, possibly with a better scholarship. You still should be taking the LSAT again, although sitting out a year isn't the only option.

No. 1000x no. You will need extremely good grades (top 10%) to be able to transfer to a decent option. You have a 90% chance of not being able to transfer. Everyone thinks they will be at the top of their class. Sitting out a year IS the only option. Even if you DID somehow manage to transfer, transfer students almost NEVER get scholarships.

If you're not striving for top 10% wherever you go, then why go? I get your point, but I find it weird that TLS is trying to insinuate that law school candidates are not bright. For years, law school candidates get told that law school is its own new entity so why knock someone. When you start at any school, we all go back to 0.

BearsGrl wrote:

bdole2 wrote:

DTDT wrote:Get good grades and transfer from the TT (BLS) to the region you want or a better national name, possibly with a better scholarship. You still should be taking the LSAT again, although sitting out a year isn't the only option.

No. 1000x no. You will need extremely good grades (top 10%) to be able to transfer to a decent option. You have a 90% chance of not being able to transfer. Everyone thinks they will be at the top of their class. Sitting out a year IS the only option. Even if you DID somehow manage to transfer, transfer students almost NEVER get scholarships.

If you're not striving for top 10% wherever you go, then why go? I get your point, but I find it weird that TLS is trying to insinuate that law school candidates are not bright. For years, law school candidates get told that law school is its own new entity so why knock someone. When you start at any school, we all go back to 0.

--ImageRemoved--

.

BearsGrl wrote:

bdole2 wrote:

DTDT wrote:Get good grades and transfer from the TT (BLS) to the region you want or a better national name, possibly with a better scholarship. You still should be taking the LSAT again, although sitting out a year isn't the only option.

No. 1000x no. You will need extremely good grades (top 10%) to be able to transfer to a decent option. You have a 90% chance of not being able to transfer. Everyone thinks they will be at the top of their class. Sitting out a year IS the only option. Even if you DID somehow manage to transfer, transfer students almost NEVER get scholarships.

If you're not striving for top 10% wherever you go, then why go? I get your point, but I find it weird that TLS is trying to insinuate that law school candidates are not bright. For years, law school candidates get told that law school is its own new entity so why knock someone. When you start at any school, we all go back to 0.

Are you the person that was vociferously arguing that a school's location doesn't really matter and then it turned out that you're not in (or even planning on attending) law school?

Since I am not opting out of going to law school how are these as solutions or alternatives to sticker price:

1) I go to Chapman with a 26k a year scholarship
2) I get my LLM afterwards to help my job prospects

I would rather work hard to get into the top 10% of my class than to gamble at retaking my LSAT. IF i get a lower score I am all likely more screwed. I am an optimist and I am going to take my chances at the legal world and do what I can to work the plethora of contacts I have now. I appreciate your advice.

I think what people have told you so far has been pretty damn good advice and you should think hard about it, but I'm really posting to point out that Chapman has a 3.0 GPA stip on that scholly they offered you, which translates to a top-third requirement to keep it (their median is a 2.8 ). No way in hell I'd be comfortable paying sticker at Chapman for any length of time.

sickbetter wrote:Since I am not opting out of going to law school how are these as solutions or alternatives to sticker price:

1) I go to Chapman with a 26k a year scholarship
2) I get my LLM afterwards to help my job prospects

I would rather work hard to get into the top 10% of my class than to gamble at retaking my LSAT. IF i get a lower score I am all likely more screwed. I am an optimist and I am going to take my chances at the legal world and do what I can to work the plethora of contacts I have now. I appreciate your advice.

You call retaking the LSAT a gamble? At least it's a cheap gamble. Not to mention your odds of improving on the LSAT are far better than getting top 10% at Chapman. Chapman is a more expensive gamble with worse odds. An LSAT retake is a cheaper gamble with much better odds. On top of that you get unlimited (outside of the 3 per 2 year limit) attempts to make the LSAT gamble. So if you fuck up your first retake you can take it a 3rd time. If you fuck up your 3rd you can take it a 4th. Etc, etc. At Chapman you only get 1 shot. If you fuck up your grades at Chapman there's no redoing law school. How you can prefer lower odds at higher cost for better odds at lower cost blows my mind.

An LLM is almost assuredly not going to increase your prospects considering LLM's are mostly worthless.

bk187 wrote: An LLM is almost assuredly not going to increase your prospects considering LLM's are mostly worthless.

LLM's aren't mostly worthless all the time. But they certainly are completely worthless for a fresh JD with 0 years legal work experience and will reduce your chances of finding employment, not increase them.

My questions are for all the people who are advocating against law school.I guess first did you ever go to law school? Second, Are you in a situation where you went to law school decided it isn't worth it, for example have a lot of debt and hard time paying it off, or recently graduated and don't have a job? I am a little hesitant to take peoples advice with out fully understanding where they are coming from. If the only people who post on TLS are the 15% of people who didn't get a job it would make sense for all this negative banter. I am just saying what if all the people who have jobs don't have time to be sitting on TLS saying how bad of a decision law school was.

x1000 to bk

quiksilver21af wrote:My questions are for all the people who are advocating against law school.I guess first did you ever go to law school? Second, Are you in a situation where you went to law school decided it isn't worth it, for example have a lot of debt and hard time paying it off, or recently graduated and don't have a job? I am a little hesitant to take peoples advice with out fully understanding where they are coming from. If the only people who post on TLS are the 15% of people who didn't get a job it would make sense for all this negative banter. I am just saying what if all the people who have jobs don't have time to be sitting on TLS saying how bad of a decision law school was.

Just go to law school.

quiksilver21af wrote:My questions are for all the people who are advocating against law school.I guess first did you ever go to law school? Second, Are you in a situation where you went to law school decided it isn't worth it, for example have a lot of debt and hard time paying it off, or recently graduated and don't have a job? I am a little hesitant to take peoples advice with out fully understanding where they are coming from. If the only people who post on TLS are the 15% of people who didn't get a job it would make sense for all this negative banter. I am just saying what if all the people who have jobs don't have time to be sitting on TLS saying how bad of a decision law school was.

...are you replying to another thread...?