St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
ruralaw
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:07 am

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby ruralaw » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:56 pm

Paul Campos wrote:A story:

Last spring, I had a 30-minute phone conversation with an 0L who had graduated the year before from a top college with a 3.9something GPA. She had done a half-baked (really more quarter-baked from the sound of it) job of preparing for the LSAT and had gotten a 160 the previous October. She then ED'd to a top 40ish law school with pretty bad employment stats and was accepted at sticker. She was planning to 100% debt-finance law school, even though she was currently employed by a low-paying but interesting non-profit. Now she was having second thoughts.

In the course of the conversation I told her that I was normally fairly cautious about telling people that I didn't know what to do, but in her case she would be crazy not to re-take -- that a couple hundred hours of studying could quite possibly save her hundreds of thousands of dollars, so in effect she would be paying herself $1000 an hour if she made bumping her LSAT a few points her main job over the summer. She was extremely grateful and thanked me for keeping her from making a huge life mistake.

I just checked the web site of the school to which she ED'd and she's a 1L there.



I understrand what you're saying about putting in the study time. I wonder why she changed her mind and continued on though.

User avatar
francesfarmer
Posts: 1409
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:52 am

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby francesfarmer » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:59 pm

ruralaw wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:A story:

Last spring, I had a 30-minute phone conversation with an 0L who had graduated the year before from a top college with a 3.9something GPA. She had done a half-baked (really more quarter-baked from the sound of it) job of preparing for the LSAT and had gotten a 160 the previous October. She then ED'd to a top 40ish law school with pretty bad employment stats and was accepted at sticker. She was planning to 100% debt-finance law school, even though she was currently employed by a low-paying but interesting non-profit. Now she was having second thoughts.

In the course of the conversation I told her that I was normally fairly cautious about telling people that I didn't know what to do, but in her case she would be crazy not to re-take -- that a couple hundred hours of studying could quite possibly save her hundreds of thousands of dollars, so in effect she would be paying herself $1000 an hour if she made bumping her LSAT a few points her main job over the summer. She was extremely grateful and thanked me for keeping her from making a huge life mistake.

I just checked the web site of the school to which she ED'd and she's a 1L there.



I understrand what you're saying about putting in the study time. I wonder why she changed her mind and continued on though.

Because she is a fool.

User avatar
mattviphky
Posts: 1117
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:43 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby mattviphky » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:15 pm

getting a 3.97 GPA is a lot harder than getting a 170 on the LSAT. Just study, retake, and then go to Harvard you son of a bitch. But seriously, if you aim for a Harvard-secure LSAT of like a 173 or something, and maybe you fall short by getting a 166 or something, that LSAT will put you in an entirely different world than you're in right now.
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/kappycaft1/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/sdudd5/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Icarus18/jd

and just to show you the difference getting even a 162 makes:
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Vanillabear

User avatar
suralin
better than you
Posts: 15051
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:52 am

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby suralin » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:27 pm

mattviphky wrote:getting a 3.97 GPA is a lot harder than getting a 170 on the LSAT. Just study, retake, and then go to Harvard you son of a bitch. But seriously, if you aim for a Harvard-secure LSAT of like a 173 or something, and maybe you fall short by getting a 166 or something, that LSAT will put you in an entirely different world than you're in right now.
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/kappycaft1/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/sdudd5/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Icarus18/jd

and just to show you the difference getting even a 162 makes:
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Vanillabear


Really? I was under the impression that the opposite was true. +1 though

User avatar
mattviphky
Posts: 1117
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:43 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby mattviphky » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:36 pm

Suralin wrote:
mattviphky wrote:getting a 3.97 GPA is a lot harder than getting a 170 on the LSAT. Just study, retake, and then go to Harvard you son of a bitch. But seriously, if you aim for a Harvard-secure LSAT of like a 173 or something, and maybe you fall short by getting a 166 or something, that LSAT will put you in an entirely different world than you're in right now.
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/kappycaft1/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/sdudd5/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Icarus18/jd

and just to show you the difference getting even a 162 makes:
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Vanillabear


Really? I was under the impression that the opposite was true. +1 though


Well a 3.97 requires about 4 years of near perfection, so I think that would be more difficult than a test. Some people just can't get 170's though, even if they do have great GPAs. However, I think anyone capable of such a good GPA is more than equipped to get a 160+. Aim high, OP

User avatar
suralin
better than you
Posts: 15051
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:52 am

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby suralin » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:43 pm

mattviphky wrote:
Suralin wrote:
mattviphky wrote:getting a 3.97 GPA is a lot harder than getting a 170 on the LSAT. Just study, retake, and then go to Harvard you son of a bitch. But seriously, if you aim for a Harvard-secure LSAT of like a 173 or something, and maybe you fall short by getting a 166 or something, that LSAT will put you in an entirely different world than you're in right now.
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/kappycaft1/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/sdudd5/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Icarus18/jd

and just to show you the difference getting even a 162 makes:
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Vanillabear


Really? I was under the impression that the opposite was true. +1 though


Well a 3.97 requires about 4 years of near perfection, so I think that would be more difficult than a test. Some people just can't get 170's though, even if they do have great GPAs. However, I think anyone capable of such a good GPA is more than equipped to get a 160+. Aim high, OP


True, although isn't it the case that there are more 3.97/4.0s than there are 170s? I thought that was the basis for most schools preferring "normal" splitters to reverse splitters.

Regardless, OP, you're in a great spot so don't throw away that GPA.

ruralaw
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:07 am

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby ruralaw » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:00 pm

Thnk you both for the advice and resources!

User avatar
paranoia4ya
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby paranoia4ya » Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:44 pm

ruralaw wrote:Thanks guys. You're all correct; I should retake and give myself my best possible option. But, if I didn't retake, does my decision between these two schools matter? I know neither give me strong job prospects after, but curious if you guys think one is better than the other.


If you want to study in NY, go to the school in NY. Other than that it depends on where you would prefer to study, as they are close in rankings.

I know that few people have the opportunity to take an entire year off to study, and it would be unfair for me to assume that you have the opportunity to take a year off to study. However, if you have such an opportunity, by all means go for it. There are several more prestigious schools that you will be competing with in the NY market.

That being said, the best choice will depend on which school offers more money.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby dingbat » Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:32 pm

paranoia4ya wrote:
ruralaw wrote:Thanks guys. You're all correct; I should retake and give myself my best possible option. But, if I didn't retake, does my decision between these two schools matter? I know neither give me strong job prospects after, but curious if you guys think one is better than the other.


If you want to study in NY, go to the school in NY. Other than that it depends on where you would prefer to study, as they are close in rankings.

I know that few people have the opportunity to take an entire year off to study, and it would be unfair for me to assume that you have the opportunity to take a year off to study. However, if you have such an opportunity, by all means go for it. There are several more prestigious schools that you will be competing with in the NY market.

That being said, the best choice will depend on which school offers more money.

Rutgers is more well-respected in NY than St. John's.

User avatar
paranoia4ya
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby paranoia4ya » Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:17 pm

dingbat wrote:
paranoia4ya wrote:
ruralaw wrote:
That being said, the best choice will depend on which school offers more money.

Rutgers is more well-respected in NY than St. John's.


... another thing you should consider is the legal field that you wish to enter into. St. John's places somewhat better into big law firms, while Rutgers places a huge amount of their class into state clerk positions.

2011 stats
% of Rutgers students in law firms of any size 9 months out= around 20% St. John's=around 40%
clerkships of any type- Rutgers- over 30% St. John's a lot less

I guess Rutgers could be better if you wanted to do a state clerkship. I would check into how great the job prospects are for people after they do a state clerkship in NJ

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby dingbat » Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:52 pm

paranoia4ya wrote:
dingbat wrote:
paranoia4ya wrote:
ruralaw wrote:
That being said, the best choice will depend on which school offers more money.

Rutgers is more well-respected in NY than St. John's.


... another thing you should consider is the legal field that you wish to enter into. St. John's places somewhat better into big law firms, while Rutgers places a huge amount of their class into state clerk positions.

2011 stats
% of Rutgers students in law firms of any size 9 months out= around 20% St. John's=around 40%
clerkships of any type- Rutgers- over 30% St. John's a lot less

I guess Rutgers could be better if you wanted to do a state clerkship. I would check into how great the job prospects are for people after they do a state clerkship in NJ

Let's start by saying neither firm places well in biglaw firms.
St Johns is pretty far down the pecking line in NY; whatever placement it has into law firms are small firms. It's not as bad as NYLS or Touro, but its placement is pretty shitty and anything more than a full ride is a waste of money.
Rutgers places a large proportion of grads into state clerkships. This is a good outcome because Jersey has a robust state clerkship program and Jersey biglaw *cough* *caugh* hires predominantly clerks; it's just the way hiring here works. Newark is also not worth sticker, but instate rate is not bad and easily obtainable (I'd still advise getting a scholarship on top of that)

I'm not trying to white knight Rutgers, but it is more respected in NY than St Johns and is well respected in Jersey. Personally I wouldn't attend either, but of the choice is between the two, Rutgers is objectively the better option for almost all people (assuming no significant cost difference, which is kinda funny because for most people Rutgers would be cheaper)

User avatar
moonman157
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby moonman157 » Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:08 pm

ruralaw wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:A story:

Last spring, I had a 30-minute phone conversation with an 0L who had graduated the year before from a top college with a 3.9something GPA. She had done a half-baked (really more quarter-baked from the sound of it) job of preparing for the LSAT and had gotten a 160 the previous October. She then ED'd to a top 40ish law school with pretty bad employment stats and was accepted at sticker. She was planning to 100% debt-finance law school, even though she was currently employed by a low-paying but interesting non-profit. Now she was having second thoughts.

In the course of the conversation I told her that I was normally fairly cautious about telling people that I didn't know what to do, but in her case she would be crazy not to re-take -- that a couple hundred hours of studying could quite possibly save her hundreds of thousands of dollars, so in effect she would be paying herself $1000 an hour if she made bumping her LSAT a few points her main job over the summer. She was extremely grateful and thanked me for keeping her from making a huge life mistake.

I just checked the web site of the school to which she ED'd and she's a 1L there.



I understrand what you're saying about putting in the study time. I wonder why she changed her mind and continued on though.


Because she's a special snowflake

User avatar
suralin
better than you
Posts: 15051
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:52 am

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby suralin » Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:41 pm

moonman157 wrote:
ruralaw wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:A story:

Last spring, I had a 30-minute phone conversation with an 0L who had graduated the year before from a top college with a 3.9something GPA. She had done a half-baked (really more quarter-baked from the sound of it) job of preparing for the LSAT and had gotten a 160 the previous October. She then ED'd to a top 40ish law school with pretty bad employment stats and was accepted at sticker. She was planning to 100% debt-finance law school, even though she was currently employed by a low-paying but interesting non-profit. Now she was having second thoughts.

In the course of the conversation I told her that I was normally fairly cautious about telling people that I didn't know what to do, but in her case she would be crazy not to re-take -- that a couple hundred hours of studying could quite possibly save her hundreds of thousands of dollars, so in effect she would be paying herself $1000 an hour if she made bumping her LSAT a few points her main job over the summer. She was extremely grateful and thanked me for keeping her from making a huge life mistake.

I just checked the web site of the school to which she ED'd and she's a 1L there.



I understrand what you're saying about putting in the study time. I wonder why she changed her mind and continued on though.


Because she's a special snowflake

zoomzoom88
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 4:03 am

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby zoomzoom88 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:06 am

my man

1. i work for a very good law firm in NJ right now. Rutgers has a waaayyyy better in-state reputation than st. johns (among my firm and most others). Job placement competition in NYC is insane as it is. At least w Rutgers you have a chance at mid law in NJ.

THAT BEING SAID

the biggest mistake of your life will be not retaking the lsat-- even 5 more points puts you in at FORDHAM a school ranked 30 places higher than either of your schools. You have a shot at greatness. Don't blow it now. And if you do I'm going to hardcore judge you because you're squandering away a golden ticket at life.

and to show you how unbiased i am: I am most likely attending RU-N this year.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby dingbat » Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:23 am

paranoia4ya wrote:... another thing you should consider is the legal field that you wish to enter into. St. John's places somewhat better into big law firms, while Rutgers places a huge amount of their class into state clerk positions.

Just to get back to this:
St. John's
Firms of 501+ attorneys: 8.22%
Firms of 251-500: 2.05% (10.27% total)
Firms of 101-250: 3.42% (13.69% total)
State & Federal Clerkship 2.40%

Rutgers:
Firms of 501+ attorneys: 6.98%
Firms of 251-500: 3.88% (10.86% total)
Firms of 101-250: 2.33% (13.19% total)
State & Federal Clerkship: 27.13%

Looks like placement in big law firms is neck and neck, with an edge to St Johns (firms are bigger in NY), but Rutgers wipes the floor with them in terms of clerkships

User avatar
ndirish2010
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby ndirish2010 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:39 am

Most of those Rutgers clerkships are with state trial court judges. I'm not sure what the exit options are like for those people.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: St. John's v. Rutgers - Newark

Postby dingbat » Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:57 am

ndirish2010 wrote:Most of those Rutgers clerkships are with state trial court judges. I'm not sure what the exit options are like for those people.
a lot of jersey firms don't hire SAs, but instead look to state clerkships as a training ground. Unfortunately, there are no trustworthy numbers




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests