USF ($$) vs. Santa Clara ($$)

[JSwear]

2.92/165, have been working family law office in Sonoma County since undergrad graduation last March.
I want to practice in Northern California (San Jose would be about as far South) doing some flavor of civil litigation but am pretty flexible.
I have very strong connections in Sonoma county and some in San Francisco.
I have narrowed my choices to USF and Santa Clara and have a good housing option in the city that would just about even out COL between the two.

SCU offer- 20,500/year renewable if in top 25%
USF offer- 30,000 year 1, renewable for 15,000/year if in top 25%

Santa Clara's high tech and IP program is causing me to lean their direction but I do not have a degree that qualifies me for the patent bar so I'm concerned I won't be able to take full advantage of the curriculum.

Any thoughts?

[andy261]

2.92/165, have been working family law office in Sonoma County since undergrad graduation last March.
I want to practice in Northern California (San Jose would be about as far South) doing some flavor of civil litigation but am pretty flexible.
I have very strong connections in Sonoma county and some in San Francisco.
I have narrowed my choices to USF and Santa Clara and have a good housing option in the city that would just about even out COL between the two.

SCU offer- 20,500/year renewable if in top 25%
USF offer- 30,000 year 1, renewable for 15,000/year if in top 25%

Santa Clara's high tech and IP program is causing me to lean their direction but I do not have a degree that qualifies me for the patent bar so I'm concerned I won't be able to take full advantage of the curriculum.

Any thoughts?

I voted SCU but only if you can get them to remove the stips. Otherwise you have a 75% chance at paying sticker your 2L and 3L, which doesn't seem like a good idea. Also if you haven't already, you should try pitting them against each other to see if either will give you more.

[hoogs23]

2.92/165, have been working family law office in Sonoma County since undergrad graduation last March.
I want to practice in Northern California (San Jose would be about as far South) doing some flavor of civil litigation but am pretty flexible.
I have very strong connections in Sonoma county and some in San Francisco.
I have narrowed my choices to USF and Santa Clara and have a good housing option in the city that would just about even out COL between the two.

SCU offer- 20,500/year renewable if in top 25%
USF offer- 30,000 year 1, renewable for 15,000/year if in top 25%

Santa Clara's high tech and IP program is causing me to lean their direction but I do not have a degree that qualifies me for the patent bar so I'm concerned I won't be able to take full advantage of the curriculum.

Any thoughts?

try to change the stips

[matrim]

ask to remove stips!

edit: whatever school removes stips is probably best choice.

[DaRascal]

I voted for Santa Clara! Go for it!

[Ti Malice]

Both are horrible (with USF being worse). You have substantially less than a coin flip's chance of getting a real lawyering job from either of these schools.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=santaclara

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=sanfranciso

[JSwear]

Andy and Hoogs - Sound advice about the stipulations, I am in the process of negotiating with both schools, USF has already increased significantly, but have really only been highlighting money not the stips so that will be my next step.

Ti Malice- These numbers are not news to me and I appreciate your desire to help me make my decision with all the information. The economy is bad and it's a dangerous risk to take to enroll in law school at all much less a 90+ ranked school but there are also many ways to add weight to both sides of the coin.

Thank you very much for the suggestions and I hope to keep this ball rolling....

[dissonance1848]

Ti Malice is being too kind about these schools. Both of them are unacceptable places to attend, even if you got a fullride with no stips and a living stipend, seriously.

Unless you have a job offer already locked in, this is financial and career suicide.

Also, even though having a 2.9 sucks, you can definitely raise that LSAT to above 170+. My recommendation here is to retake, and see if you can get into better schools in near NorCal with scholly. Perhaps UC Hastings will give some scholly?

[bananapeanutbutter]

You should have better options with a 165. LSAT is much more "predictive" of 1L performance than GPA (16%-4%). Obviously it isn't a great prediction, but you clearly have ability to perform. These schools put you in a place where your performance won't get you anywhere because of job prospects. You should reapply, and once you do that you might as well retake. With a 92nd percentile LSAT, it is unacceptable to be picking b/w 2 of the weakest law schools in the country.

[hephaestus]

You should have better options with a 165. LSAT is much more "predictive" of 1L performance than GPA (16%-4%). Obviously it isn't a great prediction, but you clearly have ability to perform. These schools put you in a place where your performance won't get you anywhere because of job prospects. You should reapply, and once you do that you might as well retake. With a 92nd percentile LSAT, it is unacceptable to be picking b/w 2 of the weakest law schools in the country.

This. Retake.