BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Bryce
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:18 pm

BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Bryce » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:58 pm

Hey all,


So I would like to hear some opinions on were I should go to school.


I know it sounds crazy, but, I want to practice in the mountain states. I want to work in an office of biglaw or similar--something that pays-- in Denver or the like. I applied to UC-Boulder and have not heard back. Even with a substantial scholarship, I would really like to go to a better school and see what the east coast is like. I am a finance senior at Michigan State taking the CFA in June with about 30,000 undergrad debt... just for some background..

BC no scholarship thus far

Washington and Lee +30,000 yr

Wake Forest+35,000

W&M +10,000


BC has employment stats that just blow the other schools out of the water and I am a little concerned with name rec. given the distance but feel a degree from a more prestigious school-- Washington and Lee, for example-- would give me more opportunity during off-campus interviewing out west, which I would most certainly have to do.

Plus at UC-Boulder I would have to be top 10 percent, simply because of the volume of graduates. Now, you may get a second look going to Washington and Lee, WM or BC or even Wake, being in the top twenty percent, which I think would be considerably more relaxing.

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

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Nova » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:17 pm

You should caluculate the total cost of attendence of each, including cost of living.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby WokeUpInACar » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:21 pm

Going to an east coast school outside the t14 while wanting to practice in the mountain states would be an abjectly horrible decision. Do you even have ties there?

ETA: CU would absolutely give you a better (while still very slim) shot at biglaw in Denver than any of these other schools. It's actually not very close.

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

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Nova » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:42 pm

WokeUpInACar wrote:Going to an east coast school outside the t14 while wanting to practice in the mountain states would be an abjectly horrible decision. Do you even have ties there?

ETA: CU would absolutely give you a better (while still very slim) shot at biglaw in Denver than any of these other schools. It's actually not very close.

I agree with this.

Would you be happy with the job prosepects from these schools with median grades? Cause thats probably what you will end up with. Or at least thats what a prudent person should assume going in.

Bryce
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Bryce » Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:51 pm

The prospects look decent at median grades for BC. I bet W&L has some help, I mean they have the money.

Just looking for advice here, not a critique.

Who the hell are you people anyway?

I haven't even gotten into CU yet so relax.

I just want you to estimate the NPV of each degree. This is a big deal to me!

hoogs23
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:16 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby hoogs23 » Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:37 pm

Bryce wrote:The prospects look decent at median grades for BC. I bet W&L has some help, I mean they have the money.

Just looking for advice here, not a critique.

Who the hell are you people anyway?

I haven't even gotten into CU yet so relax.

I just want you to estimate the NPV of each degree. This is a big deal to me!


you are the one asking for advice, they are giving it to you

User avatar
IrwinM.Fletcher
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:55 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby IrwinM.Fletcher » Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:38 pm

Horrible choices for practicing in Colorado. I have a sister in Denver, top grades from one of those schools, Level 1 CFA and CFP, and got exactly one biglaw interview in Denver. That market is ridiculously hard to crack.

Why are you bothering with Level 1 of the CFA (nobody says they're taking "the CFA" btdubbz since you can smoke this portion and still can't put the cert on your resume)? It's quasi-useful in finance and utterly worthless for law.

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

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby timbs4339 » Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:35 pm

What makes you think these schools place well in "biglaw or something similar?" What makes you think employers in Colorado would hire a BC grad at median over a Colorado grad at median?

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby somewhatwayward » Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:26 am

These schools are all regional. None will give you a decent shot at big law in CO. In fact, most of them don't give you a decent shot at big law anywhere.

The only schools with reputations worth paying for are HYS and maybe some/the rest of the T14. W&L carries zero weight in CO. Seriously. I mean, they are only placing 55% of their class into legal jobs as it is.

Your best option is to retake the LSAT if you want big law so that you can get into a school that places decently in big law. If you won't do that, then negotiate with these schools using the offers you have and then go to whichever is cheapest assuming you can see yourself settling in that area and the employment prospects aren't too terrible. Do not choose a school like BC or W&L for its supposed prestige. It is not prestigious from the perspective of people hiring in the legal field, which is what you care about. It is prestigious in the sense that it is a high quality school with intelligent students, but if that doesn't translate yo a job to pay down your debt, it is not much help.

Bryce
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Bryce » Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:46 pm

Right I am supposed to say I am enrolled in the CFA program and taking level one in June; taking it because MSU is paying for it.


So then, the best chances are where?

If I get into some reach schools down the line, go for it?

I dont even care about "biglaw" per se I just would like to have relatively minimal debt and have some earnings potential.

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

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:33 pm

Bryce wrote:Right I am supposed to say I am enrolled in the CFA program and taking level one in June; taking it because MSU is paying for it.


So then, the best chances are where?

If I get into some reach schools down the line, go for it?

I dont even care about "biglaw" per se I just would like to have relatively minimal debt and have some earnings potential.


Google "bimodal" then check out this graph.

http://www.nalp.org/salarycurve_classof2011

Bryce
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Bryce » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:22 pm

Google it? haha funny.

Right, I understand this. I just need to be the right node, which isn't only the NLJ 250.. Most graduates aren't qualified, or interested in, working in an investment bank or wealth management firm. I am confident I could get a job as an analyst quickly, as my roommate (here at MSU) has already received his signing bonus and we are both graduating in May and have nearly identical qualifications (e.g.straight 4.0s in finance and hopeful candidate in the CFA program (he is not, as it isn't "relevant in investment banking").

Now, with an analyst being the piece(s) of shit on the end of a dog's tail, they still make 100,000k a year, in Chicago, as a first year. If I have a law degree, I should at least be a larger piece of excrement, is this not true? If I have a law degree from Boston College or William and Mary, how much more helpful will that be in getting an anlayst/lawfirm position anywhere in the country compared to Wake, UGA, ARIZ, WashLee, Wisco?

Basically, what I am taking from everyone's comments is to go to the money? Yeah, I hear ya.

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Rahviveh » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:24 pm

Bryce wrote:Google it? haha funny.

Right, I understand this. I just need to be the right node, which isn't only the NLJ 250.. Most graduates aren't qualified, or interested in, working in an investment bank or wealth management firm. I am confident I could get a job as an analyst quickly, as my roommate (here at MSU) has already received his signing bonus and we are both graduating in May and have nearly identical qualifications (e.g.straight 4.0s in finance and hopeful candidate in the CFA program (he is not, as it isn't "relevant in investment banking").

Now, with an analyst being the piece(s) of shit on the end of a dog's tail, they still make 100,000k a year, in Chicago, as a first year. If I have a law degree, I should at least be a larger piece of excrement, is this not true? If I have a law degree from Boston College or William and Mary, how much more helpful will that be in getting an anlayst/lawfirm position anywhere in the country compared to Wake, UGA, ARIZ, WashLee, Wisco?

Basically, what I am taking from everyone's comments is to go to the money? Yeah, I hear ya.


Then why don't you just work as an analyst? I'm headed to a T14 and if I had your options I'd just do that.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby WokeUpInACar » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:35 pm

Bryce wrote:Google it? haha funny.

Right, I understand this. I just need to be the right node, which isn't only the NLJ 250.. Most graduates aren't qualified, or interested in, working in an investment bank or wealth management firm. I am confident I could get a job as an analyst quickly, as my roommate (here at MSU) has already received his signing bonus and we are both graduating in May and have nearly identical qualifications (e.g.straight 4.0s in finance and hopeful candidate in the CFA program (he is not, as it isn't "relevant in investment banking").

Now, with an analyst being the piece(s) of shit on the end of a dog's tail, they still make 100,000k a year, in Chicago, as a first year. If I have a law degree, I should at least be a larger piece of excrement, is this not true? If I have a law degree from Boston College or William and Mary, how much more helpful will that be in getting an anlayst/lawfirm position anywhere in the country compared to Wake, UGA, ARIZ, WashLee, Wisco?

Basically, what I am taking from everyone's comments is to go to the money? Yeah, I hear ya.

Don't go to law school. Go get some work experience and make some money, and then if after 2-3 years you still feel like law school is for you, retake the LSAT and you'll be in an infinitely better position than you are this cycle.

User avatar
hephaestus
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby hephaestus » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:44 pm

Bryce wrote:Google it? haha funny.

Right, I understand this. I just need to be the right node, which isn't only the NLJ 250.. Most graduates aren't qualified, or interested in, working in an investment bank or wealth management firm. I am confident I could get a job as an analyst quickly, as my roommate (here at MSU) has already received his signing bonus and we are both graduating in May and have nearly identical qualifications (e.g.straight 4.0s in finance and hopeful candidate in the CFA program (he is not, as it isn't "relevant in investment banking").

Now, with an analyst being the piece(s) of shit on the end of a dog's tail, they still make 100,000k a year, in Chicago, as a first year. If I have a law degree, I should at least be a larger piece of excrement, is this not true? If I have a law degree from Boston College or William and Mary, how much more helpful will that be in getting an anlayst/lawfirm position anywhere in the country compared to Wake, UGA, ARIZ, WashLee, Wisco?

Basically, what I am taking from everyone's comments is to go to the money? Yeah, I hear ya.

It's cool that you think you're so awesome but what you want will require: (1) a much better school and (2) solid ties to the mountain states.
These schools will not impress law firms. And also, in house counsel at I banks typically have big law experience on the transactional side, typically M&A or PE. If you have the credentials to be an analyst you're wasting your time.

User avatar
IrwinM.Fletcher
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:55 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby IrwinM.Fletcher » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:02 am

So you want BIGCOLORADO i-banking?

Bryce
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Bryce » Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:41 pm

Denver is a proxy for locations that have things to do outside the office like skiing/fishing. I actually have hobbies, which may not bode well for any "big" positions.. The mountain states or northern cal are my preferred locations.

Not i banking necessarily.. pretty much to start I would be happy with anything in wealth mgt, i banking, or litigation/securities law that paid a decent amount (i.e. 80,000+), assuming I have minimal debt.

The "wait and see" advice is all well and good, but, personally, I believe it would be best for me to go ASAP.

As far as analyst positions go, I don't want to go to law school to make more money (in and of itself).. I want to go because I want to be a lawyer.

So if all these schools are shitty, and all won't confer a relative advantage over the other in the mtn states (or anywhere outside their respective "regions."), I should go to the school that is the least expensive and then attempt to move to where I would like to live afterwards?

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

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby timbs4339 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:51 pm

Bryce wrote:Denver is a proxy for locations that have things to do outside the office like skiing/fishing. I actually have hobbies, which may not bode well for any "big" positions.. The mountain states or northern cal are my preferred locations.

Not i banking necessarily.. pretty much to start I would be happy with anything in wealth mgt, i banking, or litigation/securities law that paid a decent amount (i.e. 80,000+), assuming I have minimal debt.

The "wait and see" advice is all well and good, but, personally, I believe it would be best for me to go ASAP.

As far as analyst positions go, I don't want to go to law school to make more money (in and of itself).. I want to go because I want to be a lawyer.

So if all these schools are shitty, and all won't confer a relative advantage over the other in the mtn states (or anywhere outside their respective "regions."), I should go to the school that is the least expensive and then attempt to move to where I would like to live afterwards?


Basically, we're telling you that you're not going to get an $80,000+ "lawyer" job in "wealth mgt, i banking, or litigation/securities law" that is not biglaw or a federal government regulator because those jobs do not actually exist. The entry-level hiring market is very stratified and once you are on a track, you generally can't get off of it. In-house counsel departments at banks and funds only hire after a few years at a biglaw firm. So if you want to be a lawyer in those fields you need to go to a school that gives you around a coin flip's chance or greater of landing a big firm summer position after your first-year- a top 10 school.

Now going to the least expensive school and planning to move after graduation is not a good bet. Most schools other than the T20 are regional. They carry weight only within their geographic areas. So if you want to work at Colorado, go to UC Boulder on close to a fully scholly, and know that you still probably won't work in any job that approximates what you want to do.

If you want to work in a non-legal banking capacity there is simply no point to going to law school. It's not going to teach you anything to help you. It's not going to give you a hiring boost. It is going to put you deep into debt.

What you should do is 1) work as an analyst for a few years to build a resume, 2) retake the LSAT and only attend a law school that places a large number of graduates in large firms. You're a finance guy. When the odds don't add up, don't make the trade.
Last edited by timbs4339 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby WokeUpInACar » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:03 pm

timbs4339 wrote:
Bryce wrote:Denver is a proxy for locations that have things to do outside the office like skiing/fishing. I actually have hobbies, which may not bode well for any "big" positions.. The mountain states or northern cal are my preferred locations.

Not i banking necessarily.. pretty much to start I would be happy with anything in wealth mgt, i banking, or litigation/securities law that paid a decent amount (i.e. 80,000+), assuming I have minimal debt.

The "wait and see" advice is all well and good, but, personally, I believe it would be best for me to go ASAP.

As far as analyst positions go, I don't want to go to law school to make more money (in and of itself).. I want to go because I want to be a lawyer.

So if all these schools are shitty, and all won't confer a relative advantage over the other in the mtn states (or anywhere outside their respective "regions."), I should go to the school that is the least expensive and then attempt to move to where I would like to live afterwards?


Basically, we're telling you that you're not going to get an $80,000+ "lawyer" job in "wealth mgt, i banking, or litigation/securities law" that is not biglaw or a federal government regulator. The entry-level hiring market is very stratified and once you are on a track, you generally can't get off of it. In-house counsel departments at banks and funds only hire after a few years at a biglaw firm. So if you want to be a lawyer in those fields you need to go to a school that gives you around a coin flip's chance or greater of landing a big firm summer position after your first-year- a top 10 school.

Now going to the least expensive school and planning to move after graduation is not a good bet. Most schools other than the T20 are regional. They carry weight only within their geographic areas. So if you want to work at Colorado, go to UC Boulder on close to a fully scholly, and know that you still probably won't work in any job that approximates what you want to do.

If you want to work in a non-legal banking capacity there is simply no point to going to law school. It's not going to teach you anything to help you. It's not going to give you a hiring boost. It is going to put you deep into debt.

What you should do is 1) work as an analyst for a few years to build a resume, 2) retake the LSAT and only attend a law school that places a large number of graduates in large firms. You're a finance guy. When the odds don't add up, don't make the trade.

Exactly this. Why are you so certain that you want to be a lawyer? You are still very young and there is no need to rush into a career decision that will impact the rest of your life, ESPECIALLY when the statistics show that it would be a bad investment.

So many people come to TLS and say how they absolutely must go to law school NOW OR NEVER, and it's just completely untrue for 99% of people. Getting a job that pays well (in the industry you want to work in eventually!) would allow you to save up money so if you do decide on LS, the debt will be far less burdensome. It could also give you insight and perspective on what you'd really like to be doing in the long term, and if what you'd like to do in that industry actually requires a JD. Further, the work experience would make you far more employable in the future. LASTLY, an LSAT improvement would allow you to either attend a much better school, or go to one of these you're considering now with far less debt.

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby somewhatwayward » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:05 pm

Run, don't walk, to a job like the one your roommate got. That is an awesome opportunity for someone with only a college degree, and if you work the job for a few years, you can reapply to law school with the benefit of work experience, which is somewhat helpful in gaining admission to law school and, more importantly, very helpful in getting a legal job. Firms love people with work experience, especially in finance/accounting/business. I am at Columbia Law, and I would have killed to get a job like your roommate has (and you apparently could have) before I went to law school. Also, it sounds like you could save some money which will reduce your law school debt.

Above you said you had a 4.0 - is that overall or only in your major? If you have a 4.0 (or even like a 3.75), you should not be looking at the schools you have mentioned in this thread except if they give you a full ride; your question should be a T10 v. a full-ride at BC. If you do have a high GPA, I am assuming your LSAT was in the 160s based on the schools you have mentioned. I can guarantee you that you have not topped out your LSAT yet if you scored in the 160s but got a 4.0 in finance classes. Working for a few years will also give you time to prepare for the LSAT more thoroughly and score higher. Basically going to work for a few years is a win-win for you.

ETA: even if your GPA is lower than a 3.75, you need to max out your LSAT and then consider your options. If you break 170, you will have better options than the ones you have now, even if you have a 3.0. It is just especially painful to watch someone with a 4.0 waste all that hard work to go to W&L or Wake bc they didn't max out their LSAT score.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Big Dog » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:09 pm

If you want to practice in Colorado, then attending a school below the top 10 is just dumb, unless it is essentially free. Heck, most of the homies in the Mountain States might not even care about HYS grads either.

Bryce
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Bryce » Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:34 pm

I understand and I think this is some good advice. I have a 3.77 overall and 164, with straight 4.0's in FI, ACC and Econ. I should probably retake...

Thanks for the input, it definitely seems reasonable.

Bryce
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Bryce » Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:50 pm

Retook. 167. Now going to UT on 2/3rd scholarship, and passed CFA Level One. Thanks for the advice

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

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby Nova » Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:22 pm

Bryce wrote:Retook. 167. Now going to UT on 2/3rd scholarship, and passed CFA Level One. Thanks for the advice

Congrats bro 8)

User avatar
jingosaur
Posts: 2196
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:33 am

Re: BC vs. WL+;Wake+;WM+ with aid.. HELP!!

Postby jingosaur » Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:59 pm

It's incredible how much 3 points on the LSAT can do. Congrats!




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: splitterfromhell, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests