Top Law Schools

Hey Y'all,

So I'm looking at Law school in a few years with a 158 LSAT (retaking with expectations of getting a 165-170 on retake) and a 3.0 GPA. My undergraduate institution (Southern Illinois) is offering me a full ride + $1,000 or more if I get only 2 points higher on the LSAT. Along with the full scholarship, I am also somewhat familiar with the legal scene in the area (I did an internship with a Green Party politician who runs a general law office and learned a bit about the law in that time) and would be able to work here during law school, thus having about 2 years part-time experience by the time I'm out of law school, besides whatever internship I take. I also have some contacts in the Chicago through family at a boutique law firm that may or may not lead to a job. I am confident that I would be able to retain the scholarship through the full three years (I plan on mortgaging my social life for this time to focus on studies, and I only need to place in the top 1/2 of my class to retain the scholly).

I have been quite active down here fighting the coal industry, and have been published in the local newspaper several times speaking strongly against the coal plant on campus to my school's administration, and thus feel my softs may be enough (along with a high 160s or above retake on the LSAT) for Berkeley or Madison. The main fuck up I had was failing Army ROTC and Intro to Dance in one semester, along with a Withdraw-Fail in Trigonometry (though I intend retaking Trig at community college in a year off for my own edification).

The other school I am seriously considering (outside Berkeley, Madison and the "reach"es) is Chicago Kent, though I am not sure how much money, if any, I will be offered there. I'm guessing somewhere between 5000-15000 depending on the LSAT (maybe more given the softs and if my LSAT retake is quite good). I would be able to live at home and thus avoid paying rent and be close to the family at Kent, but I would also leave with about $75,000 in debt.

SIU is also a relatively new school (founded in the 1970s), yet the rankings don't seem to do it justice - one of SIU's professors recently left to serve as Lieutenant Governor of Illinois (Sheila Simon - Paul Simon's daughter). The lawyer contact I mentioned (Rich Whitney) is also an alum who ran for Governor twice as a Green and received 10% of the vote in 2006 - an obviously high number for a third party candidate.

I suppose the most important question to ask is how much experience overrides a lower ranked law school?

take the full ride at SIU iff you can get the stips removed

best of luck killing coal

Yeah dude, top 1/4 stips = brutal.

Duck - Your avatar is excellent. Also - by stips you mean the top 1/4 requirement, right? That doesn't seem too challenging if I put 50 hours a week into studying. Thanks for the wish on coal - it's quite an uphill battle, which is surprising given the fact that the hills were pretty much blown apart to get at the coal in the first place.

Bronck - Same question.

Younks wrote:Duck - Your avatar is excellent. Also - by stips you mean the top 1/4 requirement, right? That doesn't seem too challenging if I put 50 hours a week into studying. Thanks for the wish on coal - it's quite an uphill battle, which is surprising given the fact that the hills were pretty much blown apart to get at the coal in the first place.

Bronck - Same question.

The standard answer is, don't rely on being in the top 25% of your class, because everyone else in law school will be working their asses off also. That stipulation is bad as hell.

Younks wrote:Duck - Your avatar is excellent. Also - by stips you mean the top 1/4 requirement, right? That doesn't seem too challenging if I put 50 hours a week into studying. Thanks for the wish on coal - it's quite an uphill battle, which is surprising given the fact that the hills were pretty much blown apart to get at the coal in the first place.

Bronck - Same question.

even if you feel like you can be in the top 1/4 of your class, the peace of mind would be nice, right? law schools (especially lower-ranked ones like SIU) are hurting for applicants in a down application year, and will be very amenable to scholarship negotiation. someone with your unique background and experience should have no problem getting the stipulations removed. think of it as practice for future negotiations with industry and political leaders.

-Mediocre stats with expectations of large improvement
-Applying to an entirely random assortment of schools
-Special Snowflake Syndrome
-Considering TTT with STTTips

Calling troll

@rick - Posting meaningless criticism outside scope of question.

Calling projection of self.

Younks, I'll assume this is legit, considering the account age.

Top 1/4 stips are brutal. Law Schools have been known to stack all of those stips into the same section, thus ensuring that 3/4 of them fall off the stips no matter what. Even if they don't, don't count on being top 1/4. You weren't in undergrad (according to the provided numbers), and the stress is not worth it.

The listed schools seem quite diverse. Is there a reason? What are the long-term goals you have? Locations? Ties? Maybe help us understand a bigger picture so we can help.

Also, forgive Rick, we've seen some a heavy influx of trolling the last few days.

Teflon_Jeff wrote:Younks, I'll assume this is legit, considering the account age.

Top 1/4 stips are brutal. Law Schools have been known to stack all of those stips into the same section, thus ensuring that 3/4 of them fall off the stips no matter what. Even if they don't, don't count on being top 1/4. You weren't in undergrad (according to the provided numbers), and the stress is not worth it.

The listed schools seem quite diverse. Is there a reason? What are the long-term goals you have? Locations? Ties? Maybe help us understand a bigger picture so we can help.

Also, forgive Rick, we've seen some a heavy influx of trolling the last few days.

S'all good. After double checking with the website and crunching the numbers, it appears that a 50% will actually keep one with a full ride - my mistake there. I am confident I could do top 10% here, so that is not really the issue.

The reason for the diversity of schools is admissions strategy. I know I'll get in to SIU with a substantial scholarship, I am pretty sure I can get in to Kent though that would put me in a buncha debt (which I am extremely reluctant to take on given the economy), and Berkeley or Madison would be my "dream school", so I'm going to apply there, write the ink out of my personal statement, geek out on the LSAT prep, and hope for the best.

I'm looking to get in to politics, though I'm not sure law school is the best bet for that at this point. I've been thinking going into the Army as a medic might be more meaningful in general. Since it's a 4 year commitment, I'm wondering if I could get a waiver on the LSAT date of expiration (the score is good for 5 years), though that's not really the most pressing issue I suppose. It just seems that I've prepared 4 years for this studying Philosophy (which is good for law school, but not necessarily a whole lot else on its own) and so I should take the opportunity to get the bloody JD (which I'm confident I could get for free), but I don't feel quite ready to do so. I dunno........

Younks wrote: I am confident I could do top 10% here, so that is not really the issue.

But you realize that every single member of your class will also be confident that they'll be in the top 10%. Literally, every single person. Any 90% of them (and you) won't be.

I agree that going the full ride is the best way to go, but you'll have to be prepared to drop out after your first year if you lose your scholarship.

cinephile wrote:

Younks wrote: I am confident I could do top 10% here, so that is not really the issue.

But you realize that every single member of your class will also be confident that they'll be in the top 10%. Literally, every single person. Any 90% of them (and you) won't be.

I agree that going the full ride is the best way to go, but you'll have to be prepared to drop out after your first year if you lose your scholarship.

I completely agree. No one goes to law school thinking "I'll be in the bottom 10 percent."

cinephile wrote:

Younks wrote: I am confident I could do top 10% here, so that is not really the issue.

But you realize that every single member of your class will also be confident that they'll be in the top 10%. Literally, every single person. Any 90% of them (and you) won't be.

I agree that going the full ride is the best way to go, but you'll have to be prepared to drop out after your first year if you lose your scholarship.

There is absolutely no reason to think you will be in the top 10%. Or top 25%. Assume you will be at the median, or lower if you are risk averse.

Younks wrote:I'm looking to get in to politics, though I'm not sure law school is the best bet for that at this point. I've been thinking going into the Army as a medic might be more meaningful in general. Since it's a 4 year commitment, I'm wondering if I could get a waiver on the LSAT date of expiration (the score is good for 5 years), though that's not really the most pressing issue I suppose. It just seems that I've prepared 4 years for this studying Philosophy (which is good for law school, but not necessarily a whole lot else on its own) and so I should take the opportunity to get the bloody JD (which I'm confident I could get for free), but I don't feel quite ready to do so. I dunno........

Don't go to law school. Not yet at least. Going because you don't know what else to do with your philosophy degree is a terrible reason to go and creates extra risk, especially at low-tier schools where employment can be hard to come by. Get some work experience, stay involved with politics, and revisit law school when you have a better idea of what you want to do. You might find that you don't want to go to law school at all! But it will always be there if you do. And in a couple years, you'll be a stronger candidate, you can study for the LSAT and retake to a higher score, and be in a much better position to succeed.

A JD is not very useful for politics. Serving in the armed forces is much better and probably, as you say, much more meaningful anyway. The best way to get involved in politics, however, is to get involved. Volunteer for campaigns, get a political job if you want, (though that is hardly necessary) and start working your way up the ladder. If you work hard and have good people/political skills, you can find success in politics very quickly, regardless of your educational background.

Samara wrote:

Younks wrote:I'm looking to get in to politics, though I'm not sure law school is the best bet for that at this point. I've been thinking going into the Army as a medic might be more meaningful in general. Since it's a 4 year commitment, I'm wondering if I could get a waiver on the LSAT date of expiration (the score is good for 5 years), though that's not really the most pressing issue I suppose. It just seems that I've prepared 4 years for this studying Philosophy (which is good for law school, but not necessarily a whole lot else on its own) and so I should take the opportunity to get the bloody JD (which I'm confident I could get for free), but I don't feel quite ready to do so. I dunno........

A JD is not very useful for politics. Serving in the armed forces is much better and probably, as you say, much more meaningful anyway. The best way to get involved in politics, however, is to get involved. Volunteer for campaigns, get a political job if you want, (though that is hardly necessary) and start working your way up the ladder. If you work hard and have good people/political skills, you can find success in politics very quickly, regardless of your educational background.

nobody made it in politics playing by the rules, man

join the west virginia national guard armor battalion. use your political skills to foment anti-coal sentiment within your unit. acquire tanks.

i think you can figure out the rest

fatduck wrote:

Samara wrote:

Younks wrote:I'm looking to get in to politics, though I'm not sure law school is the best bet for that at this point. I've been thinking going into the Army as a medic might be more meaningful in general. Since it's a 4 year commitment, I'm wondering if I could get a waiver on the LSAT date of expiration (the score is good for 5 years), though that's not really the most pressing issue I suppose. It just seems that I've prepared 4 years for this studying Philosophy (which is good for law school, but not necessarily a whole lot else on its own) and so I should take the opportunity to get the bloody JD (which I'm confident I could get for free), but I don't feel quite ready to do so. I dunno........

A JD is not very useful for politics. Serving in the armed forces is much better and probably, as you say, much more meaningful anyway. The best way to get involved in politics, however, is to get involved. Volunteer for campaigns, get a political job if you want, (though that is hardly necessary) and start working your way up the ladder. If you work hard and have good people/political skills, you can find success in politics very quickly, regardless of your educational background.

nobody made it in politics playing by the rules, man

join the west virginia national guard armor battalion. use your political skills to foment anti-coal sentiment within your unit. acquire tanks.

i think you can figure out the rest

That plan is actually more likely to slow down the coal industry than political action.

Younks wrote:I have been quite active down here fighting the coal industry, and have been published in the local newspaper several times speaking strongly against the coal plant on campus to my school's administration, and thus feel my softs may be enough (along with a high 160s or above retake on the LSAT) for Berkeley or Madison. The main fuck up I had was failing Army ROTC and Intro to Dance in one semester, along with a Withdraw-Fail in Trigonometry (though I intend retaking Trig at community college in a year off for my own edification).

You want to hamper the coal industry? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the coal industry a very large source of income for thousands of families? Why do you want to do that?

Its funny...a large part of deciding what school to attend revolves around job opportunities and yet your goal of destroying the coal industry would destroy thousands of jobs.

Invent cold fusion if you really want to take down coal.

JD Janitor wrote:

Samara wrote: That plan is actually more likely to slow down the coal industry than political action.

You want to hamper the coal industry? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the coal industry a very large source of income for thousands of families? Why do you want to do that?

Its funny...a large part of deciding what school to attend revolves around job opportunities and yet your goal of destroying the coal industry would destroy thousands of jobs.

How could you not notice they were screwing around?

bjsesq wrote:

JD Janitor wrote:

Samara wrote: That plan is actually more likely to slow down the coal industry than political action.

You want to hamper the coal industry? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the coal industry a very large source of income for thousands of families? Why do you want to do that?

Its funny...a large part of deciding what school to attend revolves around job opportunities and yet your goal of destroying the coal industry would destroy thousands of jobs.

How could you not notice they were screwing around?

Sorry...I meant to quote the OP. Here is the intended quote:

Younks wrote:I have been quite active down here fighting the coal industry, and have been published in the local newspaper several times speaking strongly against the coal plant on campus to my school's administration, and thus feel my softs may be enough (along with a high 160s or above retake on the LSAT) for Berkeley or Madison. The main fuck up I had was failing Army ROTC and Intro to Dance in one semester, along with a Withdraw-Fail in Trigonometry (though I intend retaking Trig at community college in a year off for my own edification).

He seems serious about getting rid of the coal industry and thus destroying jobs. Did I miss the joke?

JD Janitor wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

JD Janitor wrote:

Samara wrote: That plan is actually more likely to slow down the coal industry than political action.

You want to hamper the coal industry? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the coal industry a very large source of income for thousands of families? Why do you want to do that?

Its funny...a large part of deciding what school to attend revolves around job opportunities and yet your goal of destroying the coal industry would destroy thousands of jobs.

How could you not notice they were screwing around?

Sorry...I meant to quote the OP. Here is the intended quote:

Younks wrote:I have been quite active down here fighting the coal industry, and have been published in the local newspaper several times speaking strongly against the coal plant on campus to my school's administration, and thus feel my softs may be enough (along with a high 160s or above retake on the LSAT) for Berkeley or Madison. The main fuck up I had was failing Army ROTC and Intro to Dance in one semester, along with a Withdraw-Fail in Trigonometry (though I intend retaking Trig at community college in a year off for my own edification).

He seems serious about getting rid of the coal industry and thus destroying jobs. Did I miss the joke?

The misquote is what threw me off. I thought the taking over the national guard bit was pretty funny.

JD Janitor wrote:Sorry...I meant to quote the OP. Here is the intended quote:

Younks wrote:I have been quite active down here fighting the coal industry, and have been published in the local newspaper several times speaking strongly against the coal plant on campus to my school's administration, and thus feel my softs may be enough (along with a high 160s or above retake on the LSAT) for Berkeley or Madison. The main fuck up I had was failing Army ROTC and Intro to Dance in one semester, along with a Withdraw-Fail in Trigonometry (though I intend retaking Trig at community college in a year off for my own edification).

He seems serious about getting rid of the coal industry and thus destroying jobs. Did I miss the joke?

Some people think that not ruining the planet is more important than propping up a dying industry. HTH

The misquote is what threw me off. I thought the taking over the national guard bit was pretty funny.

Yes that was my fault. I hope the National Guard thing was a joke haha.

But my original point is that the OP wants advice on what school to go to. He wants the best opportunity to get a good job yet if he accomplishes his goal he will destroy thousands of jobs for others.

a proposal:

anyone who talks about "destroying jobs" or "creating jobs"

should be killed

thoughts?

Samara wrote:

JD Janitor wrote:Sorry...I meant to quote the OP. Here is the intended quote:

Younks wrote:I have been quite active down here fighting the coal industry, and have been published in the local newspaper several times speaking strongly against the coal plant on campus to my school's administration, and thus feel my softs may be enough (along with a high 160s or above retake on the LSAT) for Berkeley or Madison. The main fuck up I had was failing Army ROTC and Intro to Dance in one semester, along with a Withdraw-Fail in Trigonometry (though I intend retaking Trig at community college in a year off for my own edification).

He seems serious about getting rid of the coal industry and thus destroying jobs. Did I miss the joke?

Some people think that not ruining the planet is more important than propping up a dying industry. HTH

lol. I like your false premise.

Coal is very very useful. If it wasnt, noone would be buying it and the industry would collapse. Also, proping up an industry is far different than tearing an industry down.

You assume coal mining is destroying the planet. There is no proof that permanent damage results from coal. Only theories.

WV is a very poor area of the country. Taking away any jobs from these people would be inhumane. Yet you care more about the idea that coal is destroying the world than people's lives. Coal doesn't destroy the planet but not having a job can surely ruin your life.