Berkeley v. Georgetown (sticker for both) Forum

[danielr]

I'll add that I don't think its an obvious/ easy choice. If you aren't sure that DC is for you and might be open to Cali, then UCB is probably better. I'm trying to provide a counterbalance to the TLS groupthink that GULC is never a good choice.

Be prepared for vitriol and unfocused criticism, then. All I ever encounter by way of GULC criticism is some variation of the claim that their employment stats are terrible. Yet, by ATL standards--according to their ranking methodology, that is, which many of the "GULC haters" on this website think are best and indeed preferable to USNEWS--Georgetown is ranked 16/50, which is only two spots different from its USNEWS rank. There is definitely room for improvement as far as employment opportunities go, but that applies to the legal field in general. GULC is not perfect; but of course, no place is, and there are opportunities for those who work hard, make connections, and get lucky.

GULC's employment stats are terrible. Saying that they ranked 16th out of 50 doesn't change anything.

......It does when the rankings themselves are based on: "Real law jobs, quality FT positions, school costs, and alumni satisfaction." No one here is saying that GULC has better outcomes than HYS or even the top 10. That's why...(drum roll)...I mentioned the fucking ranking anyway. It gives us an idea of relative value and prospects.

Maybe you want to check this out? http://abovethelaw.com/careers/law-scho ... /#rankings

[Tiago Splitter]

I'll add that I don't think its an obvious/ easy choice. If you aren't sure that DC is for you and might be open to Cali, then UCB is probably better. I'm trying to provide a counterbalance to the TLS groupthink that GULC is never a good choice.

Be prepared for vitriol and unfocused criticism, then. All I ever encounter by way of GULC criticism is some variation of the claim that their employment stats are terrible. Yet, by ATL standards--according to their ranking methodology, that is, which many of the "GULC haters" on this website think are best and indeed preferable to USNEWS--Georgetown is ranked 16/50, which is only two spots different from its USNEWS rank. There is definitely room for improvement as far as employment opportunities go, but that applies to the legal field in general. GULC is not perfect; but of course, no place is, and there are opportunities for those who work hard, make connections, and get lucky.

GULC's employment stats are terrible. Saying that they ranked 16th out of 50 doesn't change anything.

......It does when the rankings themselves are based on: "Real law jobs, quality FT positions, school costs, and alumni satisfaction." No one here is saying that GULC has better outcomes than HYS or even the top 10. That's why...(drum roll)...I mentioned the fucking ranking anyway. It gives us an idea of relative value and prospects.

Maybe you want to check this out? http://abovethelaw.com/careers/law-scho ... /#rankings

Phoenix School of Law is also bragging about its placement relative to its peers. That's the problem. Relative rankings don't help much, because law schools as a whole do are terrible at placing their grads into legal jobs. All you're doing is giving Georgetown a backhanded compliment. I mean seriously, are we supposed to be impressed that Georgetown placed only 43% of its 2012 grads into large firms or federal clerkships just because that's better than most other schools? C'mon.

For someone considering law schools, GULC is tough to justify because usually one can either pay a little more for a different T-14 with much better job prospects, or pay a lot less for a regional with job prospects that are only slightly worse. If GULC wasn't in such an expensive city or gave out more financial aid it would make sense for a lot more people and therefore get shit on less. Alternatively, they could cut their enormous class size and improve job placement numbers and make that high cost a little more worthwhile.

[BigZuck]

Dude. Agreed that Georgetown almost never makes sense because of cost and the fact that most people who get in could go to a better T14.

But, the only regional schools with a "little worse" employment statistics are Vanderbilt, USC, UCLA, and UT. Any other solid regional (Minnesota, WUSTL, etc.) are all a significant step down job prospects wise. Would I take WUSTL on a full ride over Georgetown at sticker if these were my only options? Sure. But that does not make Georgetown's job prospects objectively "terrible."

[Tiago Splitter]

Dude. Agreed that Georgetown almost never makes sense because of cost and the fact that most people who get in could go to a better T14.

But, the only regional schools with a "little worse" employment statistics are Vanderbilt, USC, UCLA, and UT. Any other solid regional (Minnesota, WUSTL, etc.) are all a significant step down job prospects wise. Would I take WUSTL on a full ride over Georgetown at sticker if these were my only options? Sure. But that does not make Georgetown's job prospects objectively "terrible."

From where I'm sitting they are objectively terrible in my subjective opinion.

But I'm also in big firm or bust territory. I probably would have skipped law school altogether if Georgetown had been my best option. For others the calculus might be different.

To your point about stats, I don't think anyone should go to Georgetown or below with the goal of working in BigLaw. If your goal is something other than BigLaw, lots of regional schools can compete with Georgetown in terms of ability to place into Bar passage required jobs. Maybe those stats are misleading because GULC just crushed in JD advantage employment or something, but I wouldn't throw 100K down on that bet.

[danielr]

Be prepared for vitriol and unfocused criticism, then. All I ever encounter by way of GULC criticism is some variation of the claim that their employment stats are terrible. Yet, by ATL standards--according to their ranking methodology, that is, which many of the "GULC haters" on this website think are best and indeed preferable to USNEWS--Georgetown is ranked 16/50, which is only two spots different from its USNEWS rank. There is definitely room for improvement as far as employment opportunities go, but that applies to the legal field in general. GULC is not perfect; but of course, no place is, and there are opportunities for those who work hard, make connections, and get lucky.

GULC's employment stats are terrible. Saying that they ranked 16th out of 50 doesn't change anything.

......It does when the rankings themselves are based on: "Real law jobs, quality FT positions, school costs, and alumni satisfaction." No one here is saying that GULC has better outcomes than HYS or even the top 10. That's why...(drum roll)...I mentioned the fucking ranking anyway. It gives us an idea of relative value and prospects.

Maybe you want to check this out? http://abovethelaw.com/careers/law-scho ... /#rankings

Phoenix School of Law is also bragging about its placement relative to its peers. That's the problem. Relative rankings don't help much, because law schools as a whole do are terrible at placing their grads into legal jobs. All you're doing is giving Georgetown a backhanded compliment. I mean seriously, are we supposed to be impressed that Georgetown placed only 43% of its 2012 grads into large firms or federal clerkships just because that's better than most other schools? C'mon.

You are willfully ignoring 29% of graduates who are in Public Interest and Government jobs. People do choose legal jobs other than Biglaw. It's not the only way to earn a living and practice as a lawyer. Yes, if one has taken on a lot of debt in school, this is probably the best option for repayment. But that's why the discussion of Georgetown's LRAP took place: it does allow graduates who are serious about working in a public sector job (nonprofit, gov't, etc.) to handle making loan payments with a lower salary.

I'm neither trying to prop the school up nor "impress" TLSers with their stats. But the notion that Georgetown is a terrible school or makes for a horrible option for law school is just ridiculous.

How the hell else would you evaluate law school graduates' placement into legal jobs, if not relative to other schools? I thought that was pretty much the entire basis for the oh-so clever "GeorgeTTTown" designation.

[Dr. Dre]

GeorgeTTTTown

FTFY

[danielr]

Dude. Agreed that Georgetown almost never makes sense because of cost and the fact that most people who get in could go to a better T14.

But, the only regional schools with a "little worse" employment statistics are Vanderbilt, USC, UCLA, and UT. Any other solid regional (Minnesota, WUSTL, etc.) are all a significant step down job prospects wise. Would I take WUSTL on a full ride over Georgetown at sticker if these were my only options? Sure. But that does not make Georgetown's job prospects objectively "terrible."

From where I'm sitting they are objectively terrible in my subjective opinion.

But I'm also in big firm or bust territory.

Never mind.

[Tiago Splitter]

How the hell else would you evaluate law school graduates' placement into legal jobs, if not relative to other schools? I thought that was pretty much the entire basis for the oh-so clever "GeorgeTTTown" designation.

That might explain the GeorgeTTTown jokes, but what you're saying is that if every school put 1% of its grads into good jobs and your school put 2% into those jobs your school would be a great option. Incoming students need to ask themselves if they can get the job they want from somewhere in the middle of the class. If no school provides that opportunity, don't go.

Can you say that GULC provides that? So far, your defense of the school is:

GULC is not perfect; but of course, no place is, and there are opportunities for those who work hard, make connections, and get lucky.

[Dr. Dre]

and get lucky.

that's how you'll get a jerb?

[danielr]

How the hell else would you evaluate law school graduates' placement into legal jobs, if not relative to other schools? I thought that was pretty much the entire basis for the oh-so clever "GeorgeTTTown" designation.

That might explain the GeorgeTTTown jokes, but what you're saying is that if every school put 1% of its grads into good jobs and your school put 2% into those jobs your school would be a great option. Incoming students need to ask themselves if they can get the job they want from somewhere in the middle of the class. If no school provides that opportunity, don't go.

Can you say that GULC provides that? So far, your defense of the school is:

GULC is not perfect; but of course, no place is, and there are opportunities for those who work hard, make connections, and get lucky.

Well, per your absurd example, I guess I would conclude that the school that placed 2% of its grads into good jobs over every other school which only place 1% each would be the best option, all things considered. Reality, as some of us know, is not like that, but I guess I'll entertain the idea.

No, my defense is that most criticisms are exaggerated, and ignore the data. All of my posts pointed to that data, or otherwise relied on it. From what I can tell, your main defense so far is:

From where I'm sitting they are objectively terrible in my subjective opinion.

[Tiago Splitter]

Well, per your absurd example, I guess I would conclude that the school that placed 2% of its grads into good jobs over every other school which only place 1% each would be the best option, all things considered. Reality, as some of us know, is not like that, but I guess I'll entertain the idea.

No, my defense is that most criticisms are exaggerated, and ignore the data. All of my posts pointed to that data, or otherwise relied on it.

So one clear difference emerges: You think that someone's options always come down to whether to attend law school A or B, while I throw in the alternative options of not attending at all or retaking. If none of the law school options are any good I don't see why someone still has to pick one, but we'll have to agree to disagree there.

As for the data, you pointed to data which isn't very good, relying on the fact that other schools' data is worse. I guess that comes about because as mentioned before you think one who has applied to law schools must simply choose the best one, regardless of how objectively bad the best one is.

Georgetown is worth it in the right circumstances, but those don't seem to come along that often.

[jbagelboy]

The sense I've gathered from Georgetown is that they offer some great opportunities, maybe even unique ones, for some students in law firms, public interest positions, and government. There are prestigious outcomes at that school that other institutions in the T30 do not offer, even if they can employ as many of their graduates. However, this only applies to about half the class. What happens to the other half? Well, not much good as far as we can tell.

If Georgetown cut it class size in half and gave more financial aid in a more timely manner, it could regain its position of respect among the T14. They should act soon though.

[dawyzest1]

If Georgetown cut it class size in half and gave more financial aid in a more timely manner, it could regain its position of respect among the T14. They should act soon though.

In the lab, you're right for sure. But in real life, can you imagine a Dean actually making this happen?

To cut class size is to reduce revenue. You've got to make that shortfall up somewhere, so in what combination do you cut faculty, staff, programming, etc.? You could eliminate tuition discounts ("scholarships"), but if you do that the median quality of your study body will suffer and you will be gone from the T14. You can't count on new sources of revenue coming available quickly enough to seriously consider them as offsets.

Good luck preventing a faculty rebellion if you go axing professors. Also, the president of the university is going to be mighty irritated with the idea that his law school cash cow is going to be throwing off less cash. Law schools are profit centers and CEOs don't take kindly to handing back profits in any circumstance.

Poor Georgetown...they will need a change in an external force to see a major change in their fortunes, I think.

[Elston Gunn]

Poor Georgetown

lol

[muskies970]

the UT/Vandy/USC/UCLA/Michigan subgroup.

Is this a thing now?

[danielr]

Well, per your absurd example, I guess I would conclude that the school that placed 2% of its grads into good jobs over every other school which only place 1% each would be the best option, all things considered. Reality, as some of us know, is not like that, but I guess I'll entertain the idea.

No, my defense is that most criticisms are exaggerated, and ignore the data. All of my posts pointed to that data, or otherwise relied on it.

So one clear difference emerges: You think that someone's options always come down to whether to attend law school A or B, while I throw in the alternative options of not attending at all or retaking. If none of the law school options are any good I don't see why someone still has to pick one, but we'll have to agree to disagree there.

As for the data, you pointed to data which isn't very good, relying on the fact that other schools' data is worse. I guess that comes about because as mentioned before you think one who has applied to law schools must simply choose the best one, regardless of how objectively bad the best one is.

Georgetown is worth it in the right circumstances, but those don't seem to come along that often.

Wow. Nice shift in topic there. Though I don't recall ever saying or implying that someone's options "always come down to whether to attend law school A or B and not retaking or deciding not to attend." I'm really not sure how you got that from what I said. You know what? It doesn't matter. Yes, let's go ahead and agree to disagree there, and on any future points as well.

Jesus, I didn't rely on the fact that other law schools' data is worse. I was talking about rankings--how they are necessarily relative, and that judging one school's outcomes as "good" or "bad" is better taken in the context of outcomes at other schools, and the legal market at large. I would have thought that using ATL's employment-based rankings methodology would be met with more enthusiasm, and maybe less criticism. It's not perfect, but it is definitely better than USNEWS.

Here's something almost all of us can agree on: paying sticker at most schools--whether higher ranked or lower ranked--is a bad idea. Luckily, the OP in this thread has parent(s) bankrolling half, so s/he only has to worry about half tuition (and cost of living, I guess).

[Crowing]

On paper GULC is the 14th best school in the country, which is pretty good relatively speaking.

In actuality due to their absurd stinginess with scholarship money, GULC rarely is the most sensible solution for anyone. Most people who get into GULC have the numbers to get more money at other T14s, especially Cornell, which has less rigorous admissions standards yet far better outcomes.

[Tiago Splitter]

Seriously, best of luck there next year.