Top Law Schools

leafs1315 wrote:

pballer wrote:

DerekTokaz wrote: One last thing to keep in mind, if you're not getting a scholarship offer, odds are you're going to be in the bottom half of the class come grading time. That can severely limit your career options.

This statement, while technically factual, is really misleading. Yes, by virtue of grades/lsat being the best indicators available (not good ones, but better than nothing), those who merited scholarships are going to do some degree better than those who didn't in the aggregate, but "odds are" is not representative of anything other than a slightly better chance than those who did merit a scholarship.

I do understand that LSAT/GPA do correspond to success in law school to an extent. But I received good scholarships from several schools ranked only a couple spots lower than these schools. I also applied later in the cycle than normal (but not too late) and took the LSAT during my graduate school exams. I know these sound like excuses but my point is that I don't necessarily agree with the statement, at least for me (but I'm sure everyone would say this).

Because someone that sits out a year, pays 3K on LSAT prep and then applies early in the cycle will most assuredly do better in 1L than someone that didn't..... Or, maybe they got the $$$ because they had a 3.9 in prelaw and the the student with a double major in EE and Physics with a 3.5 didn't.... Yupp, the student with $$$ will ALWAYS do better in actual law school; I am sure of it now......

Specialty rankings at law schools don't matter. There isn't a firm in America that think you're actually a "specialist" because you took Advanced IP II in the spring semester of your 2L year.

What is important if you want to do IP work (assuming you mean hard IP/Patent) is that you have passed the patent bar. You can take it anytime. It's helpful to take it before 2L OCI because you will get significantly more opportunities, because a number of firms require you to be an engineer/hard science major in order to apply. If you've passed the patent bar you're already ahead of the curve.

Fordham does have a good IP program generally, but it's very broadly focused and includes TM/copyright/art/fashion/sport/entertainment--those are all great but none of them are true specialties that law firms are looking for and none of them require admission to the patent bar.

You can study and pass the patent bar before law school or over the summer. I know a few people that did it during school.

Also you might want to have an idea of what kind of patent work you like (patent agent, USPTO, patent litigation). Find some firms in the city where you think you might want to work, see what kind of IP practice they have, and see where their graduates are from and what their backgrounds are.

Having a strong science background and the patent bar can help you overcome not being in the top 1/4 of the class. Only a handful of people are qualified to take the patent bar in law school so you'll automatically set yourself apart. But do not assume that a law school that ranks well in one particular area is really going to help you all that much when it comes to getting a job in that area. Those rankings are ploys to attract law students--many of whom may never even work in that area.

If you want to work in NY-Fordham is just a better choice over BC. Best of luck on your decision.

answer23 wrote:

leafs1315 wrote:Looking at the NALP directory it seems that more firms do OCI at Fordham than BC, does this necessarily correlate to better job placement? It seems that BC places a better percentage into biglaw jobs. Also, BC offered me a scholarship, if that changes things.

Every patent lawyer I have talked to says go to the school that gives you the best job placement, in that regard, are both these schools the same?

Thanks for your help.

There are special patent law job fairs. For patent law you won't only have to rely on your schools oci. As long as you go to a respectable law school there should be no problem. Pick the cheaper option.
http://www.luc.edu/law/career/patent_students.html

So I see the patent law job fair is a national event, I did not know this. I was under the impression is was mainly for the midwest schools. Do you know anyone that has had success with one of these events?

2012JayDee wrote:Specialty rankings at law schools don't matter. There isn't a firm in America that think you're actually a "specialist" because you took Advanced IP II in the spring semester of your 2L year.

What is important if you want to do IP work (assuming you mean hard IP/Patent) is that you have passed the patent bar. You can take it anytime. It's helpful to take it before 2L OCI because you will get significantly more opportunities, because a number of firms require you to be an engineer/hard science major in order to apply. If you've passed the patent bar you're already ahead of the curve.

Fordham does have a good IP program generally, but it's very broadly focused and includes TM/copyright/art/fashion/sport/entertainment--those are all great but none of them are true specialties that law firms are looking for and none of them require admission to the patent bar.

You can study and pass the patent bar before law school or over the summer. I know a few people that did it during school.

Also you might want to have an idea of what kind of patent work you like (patent agent, USPTO, patent litigation). Find some firms in the city where you think you might want to work, see what kind of IP practice they have, and see where their graduates are from and what their backgrounds are.

Having a strong science background and the patent bar can help you overcome not being in the top 1/4 of the class. Only a handful of people are qualified to take the patent bar in law school so you'll automatically set yourself apart. But do not assume that a law school that ranks well in one particular area is really going to help you all that much when it comes to getting a job in that area. Those rankings are ploys to attract law students--many of whom may never even work in that area.

If you want to work in NY-Fordham is just a better choice over BC. Best of luck on your decision.

Thanks a lot for your post, it really helped give me a better insight into these "specialty rankings". I am currently studying for the patent bar and hope to pass it before starting my 1st year, so that should help give me an edge during OCI. And I have been using the NALP directory to see what firms in areas such as Boston and NYC recruit at both BC and Fordham. However, it seems a lot of the firms group BC or Fordham in with t14 schools, so I'm not sure how many people actually get jobs at these firms from BC or Fordham. Also I've gone through websites of various firms to see where their associates/partners came from and what their background was, this gave me some insight.

I think right now, I am leaning towards BC due to cost and I feel that it opens a little more opportunities than Fordham. My thinking is that Fordham is heavily focused on NYC, while BC does Boston and NYC.

JCFindley wrote:Because someone that sits out a year, pays 3K on LSAT prep and then applies early in the cycle will most assuredly do better in 1L than someone that didn't..... Or, maybe they got the $$$ because they had a 3.9 in prelaw and the the student with a double major in EE and Physics with a 3.5 didn't.... Yupp, the student with $$$ will ALWAYS do better in actual law school; I am sure of it now......

Please learn what a correlation is.

DerekTokaz wrote:

JCFindley wrote:Because someone that sits out a year, pays 3K on LSAT prep and then applies early in the cycle will most assuredly do better in 1L than someone that didn't..... Or, maybe they got the $$$ because they had a 3.9 in prelaw and the the student with a double major in EE and Physics with a 3.5 didn't.... Yupp, the student with $$$ will ALWAYS do better in actual law school; I am sure of it now......

Please learn what a correlation is.

Oh, I looked it up on Wiki before I posted so I am almost sure I understand it....

You on the other hand need to learn that the LSAT is a test that can itself be learned. There are myriad examples of people on this very site that went from testing in the 150ish range to the high 160s or 170s simply by studying their butts off and taking various prep courses. Does that in and of itself show a propensity to do well in LS? It shows good foresight and the ability to study hard for a single test but that does not necessarily have a direct correlation with LS success.

You also need a better grasp on the difficulty level of various UG programs. The OP has a hard science degree and (s)he might not have the a GPA as high as someone that majored in a nice cushy touchy feely degree from Troy State University online. I will say that a student with a 3.5 GPA in Physics from MIT is not in fact less likely to do well in LS than the student that took six years to get a 3.95 in prelaw from NW FL .....

Law Schools use the hard numbers because every student has them and they are reported to the USN rankings. It is the only objective way to compare ALL the applicants. Schools spend money to get higher numbers and keep/improve there rankings using these numbers. The fact that a particular student did or did not get any money has very little correlation as to how well that individual might do....

I would love to continue the debate but need to go study for the Patent Bar myself....

To the OP, you are really in a win/win situation here and either school should do you well. Good luck with your choice whichever you choose....

JC

leafs1315 wrote:I know this has been asked many times before, but I have some differences in my situation. Both schools will be at sticker and I plan to do patent law (I have an engineering background). I would like to work in the northeast (60% NYC and 40% Boston).

I'm really torn between these schools.

Fordham is in NYC, places decently in NYC and has a good IP program, but I've been told specialty rankings don't matter.

BC places decent in NYC, places well in Boston and is cheaper than NYC and Fordham.

I've been told that Fordham has a lot of competition from NYU and Columbia, and BC has a lot of competition for BU and obviously Harvard.

Since I am paying sticker at both, I feel that BC has an edge due to it being cheaper and the COL near BC is cheaper too.

Any suggestions would be very helpful.

Thanks

I would pick BC over Fordham for IP law.

MormonChristian wrote:
I would pick BC over Fordham for IP law.

Thanks for the input, would you mind elaborating why you would choose BC over Fordham for IP Law?

BC is the better school by fair margin. Better numbers, a better national reputation. They even place a nontrivial number of their grads in CA, mostly Silicon Valley.

Its undergrad is way better, so you have the lay prestige factor...

Not that one school is WAY better than the other, but I think Fordham has an inflated sense of their worth. They are a regional NYC play competing against the big boys. They are not worth the extra expense.

(I would, of course, warn against attending any law school at sticker, but you've probably heard that before).

GPA/LSAT, if you don't mind?

manofjustice wrote: Not that one school is WAY better than the other, but I think Fordham has an inflated sense of their worth. They are a regional NYC play competing against the big boys. They are not worth the extra expense.

The point to note here is that in NY they are capable of competing with the big boys.
If NY is definitely your goal, it's a very good choice

dingbat wrote:

manofjustice wrote: Not that one school is WAY better than the other, but I think Fordham has an inflated sense of their worth. They are a regional NYC play competing against the big boys. They are not worth the extra expense.

The point to note here is that in NY they are capable of competing with the big boys.
If NY is definitely your goal, it's a very good choice

'Course, so is BC. And Boston is sweet for IP. You'd agree that Boston College is far better at placing in NYC than Fordham is at placing in Boston?

Well BC just gave me some money, so that makes me lean towards them. My UGPA is 3.3 and my LSAT was 167

leafs1315 wrote:Well BC just gave me some money, so that makes me lean towards them. My UGPA is 3.3 and my LSAT was 167

Yea and Fordham never gives any money (for some crazy, unknown reason--maybe they spent too much on their new 5 trillion dollar building).

manofjustice wrote:

leafs1315 wrote:Well BC just gave me some money, so that makes me lean towards them. My UGPA is 3.3 and my LSAT was 167

Yea and Fordham never gives any money (for some crazy, unknown reason--maybe they spent too much on their new 5 trillion dollar building).

Fordham does give money, but not as much as some of their peers
But, taking city preference out of the equation, go to the cheaper one

manofjustice wrote:

leafs1315 wrote:Well BC just gave me some money, so that makes me lean towards them. My UGPA is 3.3 and my LSAT was 167

Yea and Fordham never gives any money (for some crazy, unknown reason--maybe they spent too much on their new 5 trillion dollar building).

They don't need to. They have a niche carved out as the only non-T14 school in NY that still places a decent amount into Biglaw.

rickgrimes69 wrote:

manofjustice wrote:

leafs1315 wrote:Well BC just gave me some money, so that makes me lean towards them. My UGPA is 3.3 and my LSAT was 167

Yea and Fordham never gives any money (for some crazy, unknown reason--maybe they spent too much on their new 5 trillion dollar building).

They don't need to. They have a niche carved out as the only non-T14 school in NY that still places a decent amount into Biglaw.

A point worth making is that there are only a handful of schools nationally that are not T14 yet place well into biglaw.
UCLA and USC compete with each other
BC and BU compete with each other
UT (Texas is its own microcosms)
Vandy (the Vanderbilt of the south)

I can't look it up right now, who else is there?
(30%+ before the collapse, 20%+ class of 2010)

rickgrimes69 wrote:

manofjustice wrote:

leafs1315 wrote:Well BC just gave me some money, so that makes me lean towards them. My UGPA is 3.3 and my LSAT was 167

Yea and Fordham never gives any money (for some crazy, unknown reason--maybe they spent too much on their new 5 trillion dollar building).

They don't need to. They have a niche carved out as the only non-T14 school in NY that still places a decent amount into Biglaw.

Forgive me, but that gave me a chuckle. "Announcing the BEST non-T14 for placing in NYC...wait, that's not Fordham...well, ahem, the best that is also in NYC!"

The way to characterize Fordham is not as a "nice niche." It's "corner in a crowded room." A nice niche adds value by competing on different terms. You could argue that for non-T14s, that's the school in the market that pays just as well but isn't as crowded.

Also, just because BCs placement numbers overall, along with its national rep, are better than Fordham's, doesn't mean Fordham is better because it is more "niche."

For OP, the answer really is a no-brainer (sorry OP). The niche that adds the most value is Boston, and so Boston College.

Bio-med IP is in huge demand in Boston. (You should know this OP. Health Care is MAs big industry. It's finance in NYC.)

manofjustice wrote:
Forgive me, but that gave me a chuckle. "Announcing the BEST non-T14 for placing in NYC...wait, that's not Fordham...well, ahem, the best that is also in NYC!"

The way to characterize Fordham is not as a "nice niche." It's "corner in a crowded room." A nice niche adds value by competing on different terms. You could argue that for non-T14s, that's the school in the market that pays just as well but isn't as crowded.

Also, just because BCs placement numbers overall, along with its national rep, are better than Fordham's, doesn't mean Fordham is better because it is more "niche."

For OP, the answer really is a no-brainer (sorry OP). The niche that adds the most value is Boston, and so Boston College.

Bio-med IP is in huge demand in Boston. (You should know this OP. Health Care is MAs big industry. It's finance in NYC.)

Haha, no offense taken, I am really leaning towards BC because of what has been said about Boston's market, especially for biomed. I just wanted to hear some opinions regarding Fordham, because I know that NYC has a good IP market, but BC would be better for my specialty.

manofjustice wrote:

rickgrimes69 wrote:

manofjustice wrote:

leafs1315 wrote:Well BC just gave me some money, so that makes me lean towards them. My UGPA is 3.3 and my LSAT was 167

Yea and Fordham never gives any money (for some crazy, unknown reason--maybe they spent too much on their new 5 trillion dollar building).

They don't need to. They have a niche carved out as the only non-T14 school in NY that still places a decent amount into Biglaw.

Forgive me, but that gave me a chuckle. "Announcing the BEST non-T14 for placing in NYC...wait, that's not Fordham...well, ahem, the best that is also in NYC!"

The way to characterize Fordham is not as a "nice niche." It's "corner in a crowded room." A nice niche adds value by competing on different terms. You could argue that for non-T14s, that's the school in the market that pays just as well but isn't as crowded.

Also, just because BCs placement numbers overall, along with its national rep, are better than Fordham's, doesn't mean Fordham is better because it is more "niche."

For OP, the answer really is a no-brainer (sorry OP). The niche that adds the most value is Boston, and so Boston College.

Bio-med IP is in huge demand in Boston. (You should know this OP. Health Care is MAs big industry. It's finance in NYC.)

I never said being "niche" was a good thing or represented a better option for the OP. I was only pointing out why they don't need to give any scholarship money. There's roughly 25 rankings on either side in between them and C/N and 'Dozo/BK, so yes, I'd consider their position fairly unique for the NYC market.

rickgrimes69 wrote: I never said being "niche" was a good thing or represented a better option for the OP. I was only pointing out why they don't need to give any scholarship money. There's roughly 25 rankings on either side in between them and C/N and 'Dozo/BK, so yes, I'd consider their position fairly unique for the NYC market.

Reasons to offer scholarship money: BC/BU, et. al.

Tell me again why Fordham can charge as much as Cornell but offer fewer scholarships? "There are 25 rankings on either side between Dozo and Cornell." "We're uniquely a lower-ranked school, and that makes us worth more?"

What about BC/BU, et. al...

manofjustice wrote: Tell me again why Fordham can charge as much as Cornell but offer fewer scholarships?

This is a mindset that annoys me.
Schools use merit scholarships (many set up by private dinors) to buy better rankings.
Cornell has had more alumni donate money for scholarships. Cornell uses this to encourage students who would otherwise go somewhere better to find there instead.
But sticker is still sticker.
(had you asked why Fordham can charge the same as Cornell while being a lower ranked school, that would be a far more reasonable question; can anyone say "NYLS"?)

manofjustice wrote:

rickgrimes69 wrote: I never said being "niche" was a good thing or represented a better option for the OP. I was only pointing out why they don't need to give any scholarship money. There's roughly 25 rankings on either side in between them and C/N and 'Dozo/BK, so yes, I'd consider their position fairly unique for the NYC market.

Reasons to offer scholarship money: BC/BU, et. al.

Because

rickgrimes69 wrote: I'd consider their position fairly unique for the NYC market.

BU/BC place twice as many grads into MA as they do in NY. As opposed to Fordham, who places 3/4 of their class into NY.

Tell me again why Fordham can charge as much as Cornell but offer fewer scholarships? "There are 25 rankings on either side between Dozo and Cornell." "We're uniquely a lower-ranked school, and that makes us worth more?"

What about BC/BU, et. al...

Does price correspond to quality of school? Fordham can charge more because they don't have any closely ranked competition in NY. There are lots of special snowflakes out there who can't get in to NYU or CLS but still want a shot at NYC Biglaw, so they go to the best NY school that they can: Fordham.

rickgrimes69 wrote: Does price correspond to quality of school? Fordham can charge more because they don't have any closely ranked competition in NY. There are lots of special snowflakes out there who can't get in to NYU or CLS but still want a shot at NYC Biglaw, so they go to the best NY school that they can: Fordham.

The reason there isn't any other Fordham-like school in NYC is because attending a Fordham-like school in NYC isn't very profitable (for students). That translates into a tuition that should be lower. You're getting the causation backward. The scarcity of a Fordham-like school in NYC does not lead to a higher value; a lower value leads to its scarcity.

A person who wants NYC Big Law has at least just as good of a shot at BU/BC as they do at Fordham. Why? Because BU/BC has slightly better Big Law placement #s in general. Just because BU/BC place more in MA doesn't mean BU/BC is at a disadvantage in NYC: it means a lot of self-selectors for the (equally well-paying) Boston market go to BU/BC. That Fordham places so much into NYC is cause for concern, not celebration: it's worse than a regional school, it's a city school.

Fordham's unwillingness to offer scholarships has nothing to do with donors. A law school is people in a box. It requires almost no capital investment. A law school doesn't even need desks: students can answer all the socratic inquires they'll ever need to standing up. The reason Fordham can't spend any money on students is because they spend too much building brand new over-priced and unnecessary buildings, and lavishing over-priced and unnecessary salaries.

Does anyone think Fordham's doubling of tuition over, what has it been, a little over a decade, was necessary? If not, then by definition, Fordham can afford to give more scholarships (because they can afford to charge less).

manofjustice wrote: A law school is people in a box. It requires almost no capital investment. A law school doesn't even need desks: students can answer all the socratic inquires they'll ever need to standing up. The reason Fordham can't spend any money on students is because they spend too much building brand new over-priced and unnecessary buildings, and lavishing over-priced and unnecessary salaries.

The costs of law school have gone up across the board. Hence why schools like New York Law School cost as much as New York University Law School.

In this day and age, no student will pay a law school to attend classes standing up. Not only that, students take notes on laptops these days and being able to plug your computer in so you don't have to rely on batteries is the new standard. To my knowledge the building was not overpriced; whether necessary is open to debate.

The doubling of tuition was necessary to maintain the same level of education - if Fordham didn't increase its expenses while Cardozo did, then the faculty would go elsewhere.
If the rankings drop (e.g. because part of US News rankings is spending per student) then less (qualified) students will go to Fordham

manofjustice wrote:The reason there isn't any other Fordham-like school in NYC is because attending a Fordham-like school in NYC isn't very profitable (for students). That translates into a tuition that should be lower.

It is far better than many of their competitors. (there are 7 law schools in NYC and a few more just outside)
You're getting causation backwards.
Prices shouldn't come down just because value (in your opinion) isn't there
If people stop going, prices will come down.
(econ 101)

manofjustice wrote: A person who wants NYC Big Law has at least just as good of a shot at BU/BC as they do at Fordham. Why? Because BU/BC has slightly better Big Law placement #s in general. Just because BU/BC place more in MA doesn't mean BU/BC is at a disadvantage in NYC: it means a lot of self-selectors for the (equally well-paying) Boston market go to BU/BC. That Fordham places so much into NYC is cause for concern, not celebration: it's worse than a regional school, it's a city school.

This is impossible to debate based on the limited data we have (how many at Fordham self-select into NY? How many at BU/BC tried to get NY but didn't?)

manofjustice wrote: Fordham's unwillingness to offer scholarships has nothing to do with donors.

Fordham does give out scholarships, but not to everyone. Maybe you just weren't good enough?
(what are your GPA/LSAT scores?)

I'd rather not give my exact stats because I don't want to be identified. But I was good enough to get a scholarship, because I got far bigger scholarships from higher-ranked schools than Forhdam gave me.

The root of the problem is: most law students are dumb and choose which school to go to based on bad reasons. (And most law schools are greedy and willing to exploit dumb law students.)

dingbat wrote:
The doubling of tuition was necessary to maintain the same level of education - if Fordham didn't increase its expenses while Cardozo did, then the faculty would go elsewhere.
If the rankings drop (e.g. because part of US News rankings is spending per student) then less (qualified) students will go to Fordham

All a law school is good for is employment placement. So let the ranking drop, because USNWR rankings are not based on employment placement value-added. And let the faculty go elsewhere, because a professor doesn't need to be paid more to grade exams well, and that's all he needs to do to contribute to his school's employment placement value-added.

manofjustice wrote: The reason there isn't any other Fordham-like school in NYC is because attending a Fordham-like school in NYC isn't very profitable (for students). That translates into a tuition that should be lower. You're getting the causation backward. The scarcity of a Fordham-like school in NYC does not lead to a higher value; a lower value leads to its scarcity.

dingbat wrote: It is far better than many of their competitors. (there are 7 law schools in NYC and a few more just outside)
You're getting causation backwards.
Prices shouldn't come down just because value (in your opinion) isn't there
If people stop going, prices will come down.
(econ 101)

I wager that people are about to stop going.

You said "prices shouldn't come down just because value isn't there." But yes, they should. They certainly should not keep going up because, as you've put it, students actually choose to go to the school that charges the most for providing the same or lesser value (that seems dumb, like law students.) Just because prices are up does not mean they should be up, because consumers could be irrational.
(econ 201)

(And while we're at it, what about those 7+ other schools? It's with their graduates Fordham students who don't make the cut must compete. That's why Fordham's numbers have a "harder bottom," with a higher under-employment rate and a lower employment rate.)

dingbat wrote: This is impossible to debate based on the limited data we have (how many at Fordham self-select into NY? How many at BU/BC tried to get NY but didn't?)

Not entirely impossible: We can assume Fordham is almost 100% NYC Big Law self-selectors, as you've posited. We can also assume that Boston College is partially Boston Big Law self-selectors and NYC Big Law self-selectors. So, the ratio of NYC Big Law self-selectors to NYC Big Law "getters" at Fordham and Boston College is equal only if Fordham gets more NYC Big Law. Fordham is about 33% NYC Big Law (assuming all Fordham's Big Law is NYC) and Boston College is about 35% Big Law in total and about 20% NYC placement. Assuming most Boston College graduates who migrate to NYC do so for Big Law, Boston College's NYC Big Law placement is likely at least half of Fordham's. Given that Fordham is almost 100% NYC Big Law self-selectors, it is almost certain that Boston College has fewer than half the NYC Big Law self-selectors than Fordham. So in this analysis, if you're an NYC Big Law self-selector, go to Boston College.