ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
ymmv
Posts: 20002
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:36 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby ymmv » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:14 pm

cinderellasyndrome wrote:
LET'S GET IT wrote:
cinderellasyndrome wrote:
LET'S GET IT wrote:
cinderellasyndrome wrote:Goals: Conservative think tank, nonpartisan policy org, or state/federal regulatory agency

Ties: Connecticut (home state)

Choices:

ASU
Arizona
Nevada
New Mexico
Richmond
W&L
Mason
New Hampshire
UNC

Any I should apply to that I don't have listed? (3.2; PTing 163 but aiming higher)


I'm not trying to be mean, and I know this isn't what you want to hear, but with those goals you shouldn't apply to law school until you have an LSAT that can get you to NU at a decent price.


NU? What is NU and why would I want to go there?


NU is Northwestern. It's the best school that routinely accepts and gives money to applicants with lower undergrad GPAs.You'd want to go there because it gives you a legitimate shot of achieving your stated career goals, whereas the schools you listed probably don't.


Do any of the other contributors here want to weigh in on this?

I ask because New Mexico routinely places around 23% of its grads in government and public interest, as just one example. Mason gives me the opportunity to make DC ties and is backed by the Koch Brothers, as another example. Yet *none* of these schools will get me to any of my stated goals?

Meanwhile, Northwestern's 25th percentile GPA is 3.43, over two points above mine. Making even their 50th percentile would require an LSAT bump of almost 10 points. And almost no one there gets a full ride, which I've gotten this cycle and am aiming to get again given my debt averseness (.8% get more than that, which given their stats is not achievable for me). I'll take my chances at a full ride and a few years in state gov or a more local think tank out in the desert.

It just seems telling that rather than assessing my chances at achieving any one of a broad set of goals at *any* of the schools I listed, you would immediately tell me I need to be aiming for a top 10 (highly unrealistic with my stats) in a completely different area. I suppose I don't know what I was expecting in a "T13 or don't go at all" type thread, but this is disappointing given the very reasonable advice I've seen from others here.

Good luck getting any answer but "retake" after this diaper-wetting. If you don't want good faith advice, don't ask for it, or at least don't be a dick when it's given. Especially not when you've already spent your entire post history doing just that.

And also maybe read the thread title.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 28438
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:44 pm

23% gov/public interest in New Mexico is going to be primarily ADAs/PDs/legal aid/Indian country stuff, in New Mexico. It's also an incredibly insular state that heavily values ties, with a tiny legal market that offers very little in the way of the jobs you've said you want.

In fact, all of those schools are in small legal markets that prioritize ties and are not going to offer many of the kinds of jobs that you've identified, except Mason and D.C. (maybe Richmond and W&L can stretch to D.C. a little), and there are a bunch of schools ahead of all those in the pecking order for D.C. jobs.

If you actually want to be in NM or AZ or NV the local schools are a way to create a foothold and start to build ties. But NM especially will be really hard (NM local government is VERY about connections), and there doesn't seem to be anything drawing you to those areas except you think you can get into their schools.

Further at the moment you don't apparently have a final LSAT so don't know the schools you would get in, nor do you have acceptances and money that you plan to pursue, so this would all work better once you've determined those things.

Keep in mind that the jobs you describe don't actually sound like a few years in local government; they sound more like national-reach kinds of jobs primarily located in major cities.

Edited to add: what ymmv said, too. After your other thread I don't know why you're considering UNH, it's not going to give you anything like decent odds of getting out of northern New England.

cavalier1138
Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby cavalier1138 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:15 pm

cinderellasyndrome wrote:It just seems telling that rather than assessing my chances at achieving any one of a broad set of goals at *any* of the schools I listed, you would immediately tell me I need to be aiming for a top 10 (highly unrealistic with my stats) in a completely different area. I suppose I don't know what I was expecting in a "T13 or don't go at all" type thread, but this is disappointing given the very reasonable advice I've seen from others here.


It seems rather telling that someone with goals all over the map is going to reject advice out-of-hand rather than accept that everyone offering you advice has already been through this process. In the spirit of this thread, your choices are bad, and you need to do some serious research into both the legal hiring market and the hiring practices of the specific organizations you want to work for.

User avatar
heyduchess
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby heyduchess » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:28 pm

I'll play along!

Goals: Big Law (and in my dream of dreams, it'd be one with a heavy pro-bono caseload) in LA
Regional Ties: I live in LA and have lawyer friends in Big Law
I'm a splitter who's praying Berkeley loosens up on GPA's.

Top Schools:
Northwestern ED
UCLA
USC
Berkeley

(edit: applying this cycle)

User avatar
njdevils2626
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:53 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby njdevils2626 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:39 pm

heyduchess wrote:I'll play along!

Goals: Big Law (and in my dream of dreams, it'd be one with a heavy pro-bono caseload) in LA
Regional Ties: I live in LA and have lawyer friends in Big Law
I'm a splitter who's praying Berkeley loosens up on GPA's.

Top Schools:
Northwestern ED
UCLA
USC
Berkeley

(edit: applying this cycle)


There is literally no advice anybody can give without knowing your stats, but obviously you know that California schools for LA Biglaw makes sense as a very general approach

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 28438
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:24 pm

Yeah, I'm not trying to discourage people from posting ITT, but I think the general idea originally included people having acceptances and scholarships so that there were actual real choices being addressed. Some of these are hypothetical enough, there isn't much to evaluate yet.

cinderellasyndrome
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby cinderellasyndrome » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:10 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:23% gov/public interest in New Mexico is going to be primarily ADAs/PDs/legal aid/Indian country stuff, in New Mexico. It's also an incredibly insular state that heavily values ties, with a tiny legal market that offers very little in the way of the jobs you've said you want.

In fact, all of those schools are in small legal markets that prioritize ties and are not going to offer many of the kinds of jobs that you've identified, except Mason and D.C. (maybe Richmond and W&L can stretch to D.C. a little), and there are a bunch of schools ahead of all those in the pecking order for D.C. jobs.

If you actually want to be in NM or AZ or NV the local schools are a way to create a foothold and start to build ties. But NM especially will be really hard (NM local government is VERY about connections), and there doesn't seem to be anything drawing you to those areas except you think you can get into their schools.

Further at the moment you don't apparently have a final LSAT so don't know the schools you would get in, nor do you have acceptances and money that you plan to pursue, so this would all work better once you've determined those things.

Keep in mind that the jobs you describe don't actually sound like a few years in local government; they sound more like national-reach kinds of jobs primarily located in major cities.

Edited to add: what ymmv said, too. After your other thread I don't know why you're considering UNH, it's not going to give you anything like decent odds of getting out of northern New England.


Okay, the NM thing is seriously helpful, thanks. That's really good to know.

What's drawing me to those areas is... actually wanting to move out there. So I'm not too worried about being "stuck" out there for a few years at least. :]

cinderellasyndrome
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby cinderellasyndrome » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:15 pm

ymmv wrote:
cinderellasyndrome wrote:
LET'S GET IT wrote:
cinderellasyndrome wrote:
LET'S GET IT wrote:
cinderellasyndrome wrote:Goals: Conservative think tank, nonpartisan policy org, or state/federal regulatory agency

Ties: Connecticut (home state)

Choices:

ASU
Arizona
Nevada
New Mexico
Richmond
W&L
Mason
New Hampshire
UNC

Any I should apply to that I don't have listed? (3.2; PTing 163 but aiming higher)


I'm not trying to be mean, and I know this isn't what you want to hear, but with those goals you shouldn't apply to law school until you have an LSAT that can get you to NU at a decent price.


NU? What is NU and why would I want to go there?


NU is Northwestern. It's the best school that routinely accepts and gives money to applicants with lower undergrad GPAs.You'd want to go there because it gives you a legitimate shot of achieving your stated career goals, whereas the schools you listed probably don't.


Do any of the other contributors here want to weigh in on this?

I ask because New Mexico routinely places around 23% of its grads in government and public interest, as just one example. Mason gives me the opportunity to make DC ties and is backed by the Koch Brothers, as another example. Yet *none* of these schools will get me to any of my stated goals?

Meanwhile, Northwestern's 25th percentile GPA is 3.43, over two points above mine. Making even their 50th percentile would require an LSAT bump of almost 10 points. And almost no one there gets a full ride, which I've gotten this cycle and am aiming to get again given my debt averseness (.8% get more than that, which given their stats is not achievable for me). I'll take my chances at a full ride and a few years in state gov or a more local think tank out in the desert.

It just seems telling that rather than assessing my chances at achieving any one of a broad set of goals at *any* of the schools I listed, you would immediately tell me I need to be aiming for a top 10 (highly unrealistic with my stats) in a completely different area. I suppose I don't know what I was expecting in a "T13 or don't go at all" type thread, but this is disappointing given the very reasonable advice I've seen from others here.

Good luck getting any answer but "retake" after this diaper-wetting. If you don't want good faith advice, don't ask for it, or at least don't be a dick when it's given. Especially not when you've already spent your entire post history doing just that.

And also maybe read the thread title.


In what world...? I presented facts as to why NU is a *highly* unrealistic goal for someone with my stats. I'm very accepting of advice that makes sense. But it's one thing to say "here's where you'll realistically end up if you pick one of those schools, and that doesn't fit with your goals" (as the poster who explained the issues with NM did below). It's another entirely to say "aim for this specific top 10 for reasons related entirely to likelihood of admission rather than outcome, even though you clearly don't have top-10 stats." That hardly seems like "good faith advice."

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 28438
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:56 pm

The thing is, the goals you've identified read like top-10 (or whatever) goals. You've said you're aiming higher on the LSAT, so no one is advising based on your 163; and NU regularly takes people with lower GPAs and higher LSATs, more than other T14 schools do. No one is saying you will get in there with your current stats, just that based on your goals, and what you can/can't change about your applic, NU seems the best shot at a school that will do the most to get you to those goals.

consideringlaw24
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 1:57 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby consideringlaw24 » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:42 pm

cinderellasyndrome wrote:Okay, the NM thing is seriously helpful, thanks. That's really good to know.

What's drawing me to those areas is... actually wanting to move out there. So I'm not too worried about being "stuck" out there for a few years at least. :]


In NM right now. Can confirm the very insular quality of the legal market, and the state's job market in general. It is all about who you know. If you can get out here with a really good scholarship so that you can afford to take a non-legal job here when you finish, then by all means - but given that you actually want to be a lawyer, it doesn't make sense. I was open to jobs not related to my degree (not in law), and I got one, so it all worked out fine, because I cared about living here more than I cared about working in a particular field.

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Rahviveh » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:49 pm

Just find a job in a new mexico think tank. Doesn't sound hard

saf18hornet
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby saf18hornet » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:54 am

Goal(s): Biglaw Salary anywhere between DC and Philly
Regional Ties: Baltimore, Philly, Wilmington
School(s): UMD (COA ~ 20k), Temple/Villanova (Free), UVA/Duke/Mich (COA ~200k)

User avatar
Rowinguy2009
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Rowinguy2009 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:21 am

saf18hornet wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw Salary anywhere between DC and Philly
Regional Ties: Baltimore, Philly, Wilmington
School(s): UMD (COA ~ 20k), Temple/Villanova (Free), UVA/Duke/Mich (COA ~200k)


UVA or Duke would probably work well for your stated goals, but graduating with 200k debt, and planning to pay that debt by staying in biglaw, personally sounds terrible to me. It looks like Maryland sent about 19 people, in a class of 213, to firms with more than 101 attorneys in 2016, so it doesn't seem to me like that would be great for your goals. I assume Temple/Villanova are worse. If you absolutely had to pick one of the options you presented, I would probably go with Maryland, but I personally don't think any of these are great given your goals.

Edit to add -- I actually think that UMD at only 20k COA is a pretty decent option, just not if you want biglaw as you say.

saf18hornet
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby saf18hornet » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:14 pm

Rowinguy2009 wrote:
saf18hornet wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw Salary anywhere between DC and Philly
Regional Ties: Baltimore, Philly, Wilmington
School(s): UMD (COA ~ 20k), Temple/Villanova (Free), UVA/Duke/Mich (COA ~200k)


UVA or Duke would probably work well for your stated goals, but graduating with 200k debt, and planning to pay that debt by staying in biglaw, personally sounds terrible to me. It looks like Maryland sent about 19 people, in a class of 213, to firms with more than 101 attorneys in 2016, so it doesn't seem to me like that would be great for your goals. I assume Temple/Villanova are worse. If you absolutely had to pick one of the options you presented, I would probably go with Maryland, but I personally don't think any of these are great given your goals.

Edit to add -- I actually think that UMD at only 20k COA is a pretty decent option, just not if you want biglaw as you say.


Temple sends 23% to Big law/ fed clerk.
Nova sends 17% to Big law/ fed clerk.
Maryland even further down at 11%.

cavalier1138
Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:59 pm

saf18hornet wrote:
Rowinguy2009 wrote:
saf18hornet wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw Salary anywhere between DC and Philly
Regional Ties: Baltimore, Philly, Wilmington
School(s): UMD (COA ~ 20k), Temple/Villanova (Free), UVA/Duke/Mich (COA ~200k)


UVA or Duke would probably work well for your stated goals, but graduating with 200k debt, and planning to pay that debt by staying in biglaw, personally sounds terrible to me. It looks like Maryland sent about 19 people, in a class of 213, to firms with more than 101 attorneys in 2016, so it doesn't seem to me like that would be great for your goals. I assume Temple/Villanova are worse. If you absolutely had to pick one of the options you presented, I would probably go with Maryland, but I personally don't think any of these are great given your goals.

Edit to add -- I actually think that UMD at only 20k COA is a pretty decent option, just not if you want biglaw as you say.


Temple sends 23% to Big law/ fed clerk.
Nova sends 17% to Big law/ fed clerk.
Maryland even further down at 11%.


Seems like you kind of answered your own question then...




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cwoodards, Google [Bot], jl4913 and 4 guests