Seattle U vs. DePaul

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
wiscohopeful
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby wiscohopeful » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:44 pm

Don't go to DePaul. I went there for 1L and transferred out. I still got judged based on where I spent 1L up until securing my job. Thank god I can now take that off my resume. I can only imagine what my friends who have a degree from there have to go through during interviews.

kenji
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby kenji » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:55 pm

No13baby wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:If I had a gun to my head I'd go to Seattle. Chicago is beyond saturated and my friends at DePaul are crying themselves to sleep as basically 19 other schools outplace them for jobs.


Seattle is no better. If you're not top 25% at UW or T14 with ties you're doomed here.

OP, please retake.


I know people below median at UW with jobs lined up. STFU.

OP, dont listen to this guy as he obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby romothesavior » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:48 pm

Kenji (and others), serious question.

Why is it "elitist" to say that it is a bad idea to take out massive debt to go to a law school that places less than half of their students into legal jobs? I really want to know the answer to this. The statistics are alarming and incontrovertible. Is there something ITT that you disagree with? No one has said anything re: DePaul or Seattle U that isn't true.

OP is asking questions about law school (asking for "thoughts" and asking for us to compare these two schools). He is in the "Choosing a Law School Forum" asking for advice about law schools from law school applicants and current law students. Why is it "elitist" for us to say, "Hey dude, both of these schools are expensive, located in oversaturated markets, and place really, really poorly"?

I am at a loss for words when I hear this "elitist" label thrown around for nothing other than giving straightforward, honest, and potentially (financial) life-saving advice.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby flem » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:40 am

romothesavior wrote:I am at a loss for words when I hear this "elitist" label thrown around for nothing other than giving straightforward, honest, and potentially (financial) life-saving advice.


Because we only think people should go to law school if they have a full ride at HYS duh bro

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby romothesavior » Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:14 pm

flem wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I am at a loss for words when I hear this "elitist" label thrown around for nothing other than giving straightforward, honest, and potentially (financial) life-saving advice.


Because we only think people should go to law school if they have a full ride at HYS duh bro

Been here 3 years and I still can't get a non-derpy articulation of why it is elitist to say don't go to a school with bad employment or retake, yet I hear it all the time. We're oh so elitist.

Kenji, et al, I'm still waiting.

OP, don't go to either.

kenji
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby kenji » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:33 am

romothesavior wrote:
flem wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I am at a loss for words when I hear this "elitist" label thrown around for nothing other than giving straightforward, honest, and potentially (financial) life-saving advice.


Because we only think people should go to law school if they have a full ride at HYS duh bro

Been here 3 years and I still can't get a non-derpy articulation of why it is elitist to say don't go to a school with bad employment or retake, yet I hear it all the time. We're oh so elitist.

Kenji, et al, I'm still waiting.

OP, don't go to either.


This is ridiculously simple. If you're actively making elitism survive and thrive, you're elitist.

"Welp elitists dont hire from Seattle U, so dont go to Seattle U"

Its elitist to to look at a schools low rank/lack of prestige and say "us super-awesome biglaw people will never hire from that school"

And its definitely elitist to buy into that mindset and keep it going. Simple. OP, go where you want.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby Nova » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:42 am

kenji wrote: Its elitist to to look at a schools low rank/lack of prestige and say "us super-awesome biglaw people will never hire from that school"



Its seriously about the jobs. I woulnt even attend my school at sticker. I wouldnt be able to afford it. OVER HALF (60%) of SU and DePaul grads dont get what they went for, a FT LT JD reqd job. In the procces, they waste 3 good years of life and usually well over 100k. I sincerely hope SU works out for you, Kenji. OP should to retake.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby rickgrimes69 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:51 am

kenji wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
flem wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I am at a loss for words when I hear this "elitist" label thrown around for nothing other than giving straightforward, honest, and potentially (financial) life-saving advice.


Because we only think people should go to law school if they have a full ride at HYS duh bro

Been here 3 years and I still can't get a non-derpy articulation of why it is elitist to say don't go to a school with bad employment or retake, yet I hear it all the time. We're oh so elitist.

Kenji, et al, I'm still waiting.

OP, don't go to either.


This is ridiculously simple. If you're actively making elitism survive and thrive, you're elitist.

"Welp elitists dont hire from Seattle U, so dont go to Seattle U"

Its elitist to to look at a schools low rank/lack of prestige and say "us super-awesome biglaw people will never hire from that school"

And its definitely elitist to buy into that mindset and keep it going. Simple. OP, go where you want.


Your entire premise seems to be based on the assumption that employers base their hiring solely on a school's prestige -lets pretend you're a law firm. You have room to hire one candidate. Are you going for the guy you believe to be best qualified, or do you go with the lesser one because you want to fight "elitism"?

If there were enough jobs to go around, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to give Joe Schmo from TTT State a shot. But there aren't, and there are very limited ways one can discern a potential candidate's potential for success. One of those ways is by considering where they went to school.

kenji
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby kenji » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:36 am

Nova wrote:
kenji wrote: Its elitist to to look at a schools low rank/lack of prestige and say "us super-awesome biglaw people will never hire from that school"



Its seriously about the jobs. I woulnt even attend my school at sticker. I wouldnt be able to afford it. OVER HALF (60%) of SU and DePaul grads dont get what they went for, a FT LT JD reqd job. In the procces, they waste 3 good years of life and usually well over 100k. I sincerely hope SU works out for you, Kenji. OP should to retake.


I don't go to Seattle U. Thanks for the advice though.

Its seriously about elitism. Everyone's school is "better/worse" "more prestigious/less prestigious" than another and that determines your legal "fate". Straight up elitism.

And you all just push this elitist thought process. So people in this thread/board are elitist.

I was asked why there was elitism in this thread and I explained. Law is all about elitism, so I'm not surprised or anything.

kenji
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby kenji » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:44 am

rickgrimes69 wrote:
Your entire premise seems to be based on the assumption that employers base their hiring solely on a school's prestige -lets pretend you're a law firm. You have room to hire one candidate. Are you going for the guy you believe to be best qualified, or do you go with the lesser one because you want to fight "elitism"?

If there were enough jobs to go around, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to give Joe Schmo from TTT State a shot. But there aren't, and there are very limited ways one can discern a potential candidate's potential for success. One of those ways is by considering where they went to school.


......Are you disagreeing with me on some point? You're rationalizing elitism. Rationalizing elitism still means you're being elitist. Elitism(and my point) hasn't gone away.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby PDaddy » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:08 am

ben2587 wrote:what abc said...


Problem: SULaw is CHEAP with scholarships, even with the brightest of its students. That's a crying shame, because it's probably one of the most underrated schools ever (national #1 in legal writing, and top-15 in environmental law for example). Don't know why its employment numbers suck even in good times.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby JusticeHarlan » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:54 am

kenji wrote:Its seriously about elitism. Everyone's school is "better/worse" "more prestigious/less prestigious" than another and that determines your legal "fate". Straight up elitism.

And you all just push this elitist thought process. So people in this thread/board are elitist.

I was asked why there was elitism in this thread and I explained. Law is all about elitism, so I'm not surprised or anything.

Telling someone to retake, in fact telling almost everyone to retake, is actually very egalitarian. It says, "I believe that you can perform better." It's not saying "you're never going to make it as a lawyer." It says "I believe you can make it as a lawyer, if you work hard at it." There's nothing elitist about saying to everyone "you can accomplish what you're setting out to do, if you take a little more time and work a little harder." It's egalitarian.

What you're saying, "don't retake, you'll be fine," is saying to everyone "no need to work hard to accomplish what you set out to do, you're a special snowflake and you'll do just fine!" That's the kind of crap that gets people unemployed with massive debt and running scamblogs. Because, guess what, more than half the graduates at these schools don't accomplish the goal of getting a lawyer. There aren't enough law jobs out there. It's math.

There's a certain elitism going on, but it's not about people, it's about schools. We are saying some schools are better than others, but not in some prestige-for-prestige-sake, metaphysical sense. In the getting-a-job sense. You either agree that Harvard gives you a better chance of getting a law job than Cooley does, or you don't. If that makes someone an elitist, then non-elitists are morons. All people here are saying is that OP has a better chance of getting a job from some schools than others, so he should work hard to do just that. We're not calling ourselves better than he is, we're saying he can accomplish what he wants through with a bit more work.

tl;dr: why not just go to Cooley? Because getting a job is kind of important, and correlates strongly to which school you go to.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby romothesavior » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:09 am

VERY well said, Justice Harlan. Telling someone that 1) they are making a huge financial mistake that is unlikely (based on objective facts) to lead to a job, and 2) they should work hard and retake the LSAT to put themselves in a better position, is not snobbery. I am so, SO glad someone told me these things before I retook the LSAT, or I would be in dire shape.

Nova is right. It really is about the jobs. I go to a pretty well-respected T20 school on scholarship, and I love it. But when I look at the job placement data from my school or talk to my many close friends who currently have no idea what they are going to do in a year to use their JD and pay off their debts, I am reminded how fortunate I am to have basically dodged a bullet. I would not even recommend my own school (which is objectively far better than both of these) at sticker or close to it. Does that make me elitist towards my own school, and therefore towards myself? (*head asplode*)

You wanna make legal hiring "less elistist," whatever that means? Okay, cool. More power to you bro. But we live in the here and now. Telling someone to go to a school that places less than half their students into meaningful legal jobs is not the way to change the world for the better. Both of these schools are very likely to lead to disappointment and un/under-employment. Your advice here is logically incoherent, and very damaging to people who desperately need legitimate advice.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby flem » Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:30 am

kenji wrote:This is ridiculously simple. If you're actively making elitism survive and thrive, you're elitist.

"Welp elitists dont hire from Seattle U, so dont go to Seattle U"

Its elitist to to look at a schools low rank/lack of prestige and say "us super-awesome biglaw people will never hire from that school"

And its definitely elitist to buy into that mindset and keep it going. Simple. OP, go where you want.


SWING AND A MISS

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby rickgrimes69 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:40 am

kenji wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
Your entire premise seems to be based on the assumption that employers base their hiring solely on a school's prestige -lets pretend you're a law firm. You have room to hire one candidate. Are you going for the guy you believe to be best qualified, or do you go with the lesser one because you want to fight "elitism"?

If there were enough jobs to go around, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to give Joe Schmo from TTT State a shot. But there aren't, and there are very limited ways one can discern a potential candidate's potential for success. One of those ways is by considering where they went to school.


......Are you disagreeing with me on some point? You're rationalizing elitism. Rationalizing elitism still means you're being elitist. Elitism(and my point) hasn't gone away.


Fine Mr. Circular Reasoning, lets hear your solution. Let's pretend you have two candidates who both have no work experience and nothing on their resume but the school they attended. They both interview well and finished in the top third of their class. Let's say they are virtually identical, save for the fact that one went to a T14, the other to a TTTT. I'd love to hear your rationale for choosing the second candidate.

User avatar
North
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby North » Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:17 am

JusticeHarlan wrote:Telling someone to retake, in fact telling almost everyone to retake, is actually very egalitarian. It says, "I believe that you can perform better." It's not saying "you're never going to make it as a lawyer." It says "I believe you can make it as a lawyer, if you work hard at it." There's nothing elitist about saying to everyone "you can accomplish what you're setting out to do, if you take a little more time and work a little harder." It's egalitarian.

What you're saying, "don't retake, you'll be fine," is saying to everyone "no need to work hard to accomplish what you set out to do, you're a special snowflake and you'll do just fine!" That's the kind of crap that gets people unemployed with massive debt and running scamblogs. Because, guess what, more than half the graduates at these schools don't accomplish the goal of getting a lawyer. There aren't enough law jobs out there. It's math.

There's a certain elitism going on, but it's not about people, it's about schools. We are saying some schools are better than others, but not in some prestige-for-prestige-sake, metaphysical sense. In the getting-a-job sense. You either agree that Harvard gives you a better chance of getting a law job than Cooley does, or you don't. If that makes someone an elitist, then non-elitists are morons. All people here are saying is that OP has a better chance of getting a job from some schools than others, so he should work hard to do just that. We're not calling ourselves better than he is, we're saying he can accomplish what he wants through with a bit more work.

tl;dr: why not just go to Cooley? Because getting a job is kind of important, and correlates strongly to which school you go to.
Exactly.

kenji wrote:This is ridiculously simple. If you're actively making elitism survive and thrive, you're elitist.

"Welp elitists dont hire from Seattle U, so dont go to Seattle U"

Its elitist to to look at a schools low rank/lack of prestige and say "us super-awesome biglaw people will never hire from that school"

And its definitely elitist to buy into that mindset and keep it going. Simple. OP, go where you want.
What a joke, bro. DO NOT tell people that it's a good idea to make terrible, life-ruiningly risky financial decisions. Seriously, because this guy might actually take your terrible advice. There are better, smarter ways to stand up to "the system."

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby flem » Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:21 am

kenji wrote:......Are you disagreeing with me on some point? You're rationalizing elitism. Rationalizing elitism still means you're being elitist. Elitism(and my point) hasn't gone away.


I like when people display such shitty logic when defending these schools, which caused them to do poorly on the LSAT and attend schools like these and defend their decision in the first place.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:36 am

kenji wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
Your entire premise seems to be based on the assumption that employers base their hiring solely on a school's prestige -lets pretend you're a law firm. You have room to hire one candidate. Are you going for the guy you believe to be best qualified, or do you go with the lesser one because you want to fight "elitism"?

If there were enough jobs to go around, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to give Joe Schmo from TTT State a shot. But there aren't, and there are very limited ways one can discern a potential candidate's potential for success. One of those ways is by considering where they went to school.


......Are you disagreeing with me on some point? You're rationalizing elitism. Rationalizing elitism still means you're being elitist. Elitism(and my point) hasn't gone away.


No, he's being realistic. You're not going to change the legal hiring market as a 0L. You're not going to make hiring partners stop caring about school rank as a proxy for Lawyer IQ just by pouting a lot on the internet. OP needs to make the best decision for OP and screw all your high-minded egalitarian bullshit. You're come off as an extremely selfish person who wants OP to make a poor financial decision just to comport with your view of how the world should be.

kenji
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby kenji » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:11 pm

Romo asked where the elitism is. So I answered that request.

Remember, I said this was "ridiculously simple". Well, it is. This is not about "standing up to the system" or complaining about the elitism or even wanting to eliminate the elitism.

My only point was that there is, in fact, such elitism. And you all are engaging/perpetuating it. So you're elitist also. Romo asked where elitism was and so I answered that request. That simple.

Not my problem you all cant grasp a simple point. Which is kind of embarrassing since I apparently did "so shitty" on the lsat. And you all did much much much better.
Last edited by kenji on Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby spleenworship » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:24 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:You should not attend either of these schools anywhere close to sticker. This isn't TLS elitism, this is reality from a current law student. The market out there for permanent legal employment is way worse than anything any 0L can imagine.


If I had a gun to my head I'd go to Seattle. Chicago is beyond saturated and my friends at DePaul are crying themselves to sleep as basically 19 other schools outplace them for jobs.

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby spleenworship » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:26 pm

kenji wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
flem wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I am at a loss for words when I hear this "elitist" label thrown around for nothing other than giving straightforward, honest, and potentially (financial) life-saving advice.


Because we only think people should go to law school if they have a full ride at HYS duh bro

Been here 3 years and I still can't get a non-derpy articulation of why it is elitist to say don't go to a school with bad employment or retake, yet I hear it all the time. We're oh so elitist.

Kenji, et al, I'm still waiting.

OP, don't go to either.


This is ridiculously simple. If you're actively making elitism survive and thrive, you're elitist.

"Welp elitists dont hire from Seattle U, so dont go to Seattle U"

Its elitist to to look at a schools low rank/lack of prestige and say "us super-awesome biglaw people will never hire from that school"

And its definitely elitist to buy into that mindset and keep it going. Simple. OP, go where you want.



Dude, we aren't even talking biglaw. We are saying 40% OVERALL full time JD required employment. That includes midlaw, small law, doc review, all of it. Going to a school with less than half a chance at any job at all as a lawyer with $150K debt is a HORRIBLE IDEA.


ETA: and before you go off on me for being elitist.... I go to a Regional T2, I have nothing against the grads of either of OPs institutions, and I would consider hiring them. But my decision to go to a T2 was based off: 1) a large scholarship, 2) in state tutition, 3) the fact that it was a strong regional, 4) the employment numbers at the time showed 75% of the class of '10 getting full time JD required work. As I watch the graduating 3Ls scramble for jobs and taking shit they didn't want but at least is paying legal work.... I'm scared. We should all be scared.

User avatar
Teflon_Jeff
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:43 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby Teflon_Jeff » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:33 pm

kenji wrote:I like no one is disagreeing that it is elitist. Romo asked where the elitism is. So I answered that request.

Remember, I said this was "ridiculously simple". Well, it is. This is not about "standing up to the system" or complaining about the elitism or even wanting to eliminate the elitism.

My only point was that there is, in fact, such elitism. And you all are engaging/perpetuating it. So you're elitist also. That simple.

Not my problem you all cant grasp a simple point. Which is kind of embarrassing since I apparently did "so shitty" on the lsat. And you all did much much much better.


Kenji, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Look up elitism.

bah, I'll do it for you, seeing as how I'm such an elitist.

1. a. the belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals
b. such government
2. pride in or awareness of being one of an elite group

Selective hiring practices based on quality of education is not elitism. It's not even academic elitism. It's called "Screening" and as much as you want it to be something else, it isn't.

kenji wrote:Its elitist to to look at a schools low rank/lack of prestige and say "us super-awesome biglaw people will never hire from that school"


Except no one is saying that. They frequently hire outside of the top 14, top 20, or even top 30. Just at much lower percentages, because the further down you go, the less qualified they become. Are there worthwhile attorneys at a school in the 50s or whatever? Sure, and that small percentage who are awesome generally have those opportunities by finishing highly within that school. Hence why you see 7 or 10 % BigLaw from lower ranked schools on occasion. But too many of those students barely got into Tier Two schools, and are tier two lawyers, and there aren't nearly as many jobs as there are tier two lawyers.

What we're proposing is that, if you are one of those exceptionally good lawyers, why not pick the best opportunities available to you? The one that, statistically, will give you the best opportunities to succeed? One that isn't GeorgeTTTown? (That's just for you, Fleming)

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby rickgrimes69 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:58 pm

kenji wrote:I like no one is disagreeing that it is elitist. Romo asked where the elitism is. So I answered that request.

Remember, I said this was "ridiculously simple". Well, it is. This is not about "standing up to the system" or complaining about the elitism or even wanting to eliminate the elitism.

My only point was that there is, in fact, such elitism. And you all are engaging/perpetuating it. So you're elitist also. That simple.

Not my problem you all cant grasp a simple point. Which is kind of embarrassing since I apparently did "so shitty" on the lsat. And you all did much much much better.


Way to mischaracterize the debate. Your point was not "proving that elitism exists." Any one of us could have told you that. You are presenting elitism as a negative quality because employers (and TLSers) were allegedly shallowly and unfairly shunning lesser schools on an arbitrary basis (rankings). What we are trying to explain to you is that school rankings are there for a reason, and a big part of that is based on their ability to get you a job. That's sort of the point of law school. If you want to equate "getting a job" to "elitism" go right ahead, but it doesn't change the fact that you're a moron if you try and go against the grain and pretend it isn't important.

kenji
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby kenji » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:21 pm

Look, I said my point several times now. I guess when you have no counterargument, putting words in my mouth and personal comments are the next best thing.

I want to make legal hiring "less elitist", I go to Seattle U, I have a terrible lsat, I go to a horrible school, I want to stand up to the system, I think elitism is a "negative quality".

Now everyone, please continue talking around my argument. I guess it makes it easier to respond.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: Seattle U vs. DePaul

Postby flem » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:22 pm

kenji wrote:Now everyone, please continue talking around my argument. I guess it makes it easier to respond.


What, exactly, is your argument?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests